On Sun, 6 Mar 2022, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
On 3/6/2022 5:31 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 3/6/22 20:28, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
[snip]
There's nothing in the text to suggest that an ephemeral or editable
message can't be a message. And iirc
On Wed, 2 Mar 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
On 3/2/22 15:45, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
If the minimal modification would include past or present rule changes,
they are instead excluded unless the ratified document explicitly and
unambiguously recites either the changes
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 3/1/22 00:41, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
I would strongly suggest that this only restrict rule changes in the
minimal modification, and not any later changes following logically from
it. Otherwise
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 2/28/22 22:11, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
I am not sure that the above definition corresponds _either_ to what a
retroactive change intuitively is or to what ratification platonically
does. It might correspond
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
I present the following draft to clean up the ratification rule.
The only intended semantic change is securing all retroactive
modification, everything else is just mean to make the existing text
much more clear.
Title: Temporal
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
For reference:
{{{
Each of the following Ministries has a Grant, listed below.
Ministry of Compliance: 1 Justice Card
Ministry of Legislation: 1 Legislative Card
Ministry of Participation: 1 Voting Card
Ministry of
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Sarah S. via agora-discussion wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:45 PM Aspen via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:41 AM Sarah S. via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:47
On Mon, 24 Jan 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I create the following proposal, then pay a fee of one pendant to cause
it to become pending.
Title: Auction Self-Ratification
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason
Coauthors:
Set the power of Rule 2545 to 3.
Amend Rule 2545 by appending
On Sun, 2 Jan 2022, Aspen via agora-business wrote:
Last year, there were a few days that held great personal significance
for me. As of the 13th of September, I had been a player for five
years. Just over a month later, on the 21st of October, I had been
your Promotor for five years as well.
On Sun, 2 Jan 2022, ais523 via agora-official wrote:
The Device is on.
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is off:" list:
{{{
The Rulekeepor SHOULD also include any other
On Tue, 28 Dec 2021, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
On Tue, 2021-12-28 at 11:21 +0100, nethack4.org dicebot via agora-
business wrote:
The dice roll was: 27
This is R1681, The Logical Rulesets.
Any suggestions?
Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
All choices are made using AgoraBot in a public channel on the
unofficial Discord. I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the
best of my knowledge, the choices listed below had the probabilities
listed below.
That's all very
El 29/11/2021 a las 07:19, ais523 via agora-discussion escribió:
Each Agoran decision has a set of valid options (the choices
that
the voters are being asked to select from) and valid votes (the
ways in which the voters can express their opinion or lack
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 04:23 +0100, nethack4.org dicebot via agora-
business wrote:
The dice roll was: 90
This is R2518, Determinacy.
For reference:
{{{
If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
On 11/16/2021 6:38 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
I perform the following actions if and only if they all succeed:
{
I destroy 150 of Jason's coins.
I cause the Hot Potato Stone to be transferred to Jason.
I wield the
On Mon, 15 Nov 2021, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 15:38 -0500, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
On 11/15/21 15:36, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
I perform the following actions if and only if they all succeed:
{
I destroy 150 of Jason's coins.
I cause
On Sat, 13 Nov 2021, nix via agora-official wrote:
===
THE SCROLL OF AGORA
===
[snip]
---
NEWS
On Tue, 9 Nov 2021, Sarah S. via agora-discussion wrote:
"Device is secured with Power Threshold 3."
Conflicts with Rule 1688, which only allows Thresholds lower than the
Power of the securing Rule.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Wed, 3 Nov 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
THE BILLBOARD ROCK CHART (STONEMASON'S WEEKLY REPORT)
Summary of stone functions:
This summary seems to miss the new stones.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, Shy Owl via agora-discussion wrote:
Fora
The publicity switch values (Rule 478) are self-ratifying.
PublicityLocation or description Typical use
---- ---
Public agora-official at
On Thu, 21 Oct 2021, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
On Thu, 2021-10-21 at 17:54 +, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
The new last sentence of R1607 seems to require the Promotor to
distribute proposals even if they've been withdrawn:
E SHALL then distribute those undistributed
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021, Shy Owl via agora-official wrote:
Below is the registrar's weekly report.
Fora
The publicity switch values (Rule 478) are self-ratifying.
PublicityLocation or description Typical use
----
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
I'm really confused...
Questions (for Ørjan, I guess?) inline. I'm quoting Ørjan out of order
since my questions make a bit more sense in that order.
The last and only time I came to qualify for a White Ribbon when I
became a player:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
Taking suggestions, as usual; it'll probably take many eyes to find the
best sentence or group of sentences from here to add to the Device.
(One thing worth noting: Ribbon
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
Taking suggestions, as usual; it'll probably take many eyes to find the
best sentence or group of sentences from here to add to the Device.
(One thing worth noting: Ribbon Ownership is secured, so a Power-1
Device definition won't be able
On Sun, 10 Oct 2021, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 03:42:14PM -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
wrote:
Falsifian wrote:
I award myself White Glitter.
Note: I do not own a White Ribbon, but R2602 might not actually require
me to own the ribbon:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
Here's a proto to not erase player's festivity when they win by ribbons:
Amend Rule 2438 by appending the following to the paragraph beginning "For each type
of Ribbon":
{
Laudability is a person switch with non-negative integer
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021, BenjaminFrancis Rodriguez via agora-official wrote:
I join this contract. I transfer 2 boatloads of coins from the contract to
myself. I transfer 1 victory point from the contract to myself. transfer 1
Pendant from the contract to myself.
I think the Pendant transfer
On Tue, 5 Oct 2021, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
I object
Hm. If I am right about how the scam works, and Jason understands it
the same way, then the actions of you two suggest to me that you are
colluding.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 3:44 AM Jason Cobb via
On Tue, 5 Oct 2021, Sarah S. via agora-discussion wrote:
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 11:58 AM Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Oct 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy.
Ouch.
On Mon, 4 Oct 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy.
Ouch. I pity the judge that gets to sort this out.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sun, 3 Oct 2021, Aspen via agora-official wrote:
//
ID: 8625
Title: giving the gift of an amendment
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Trigon
Co-author(s):
[ COMMENT: Introduces a new term of art so that we don't have to worry
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 9:14 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
CFJ: If R. Lee registers in October and doesn't publish
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 9:14 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
CFJ: If R. Lee registers in October and doesn't publish a plan to flip
eir focus, eir focus would be flipped to Legislation on Nov
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021, Sarah S. via agora-discussion wrote:
I intend to shred without 2 objections each contract which I am a member of
It seems to me y'all should object to this on principle, as it has obvious
scam potential.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I submit the following proposal, and pay a fee of one pendant to cause
it to become pending.
Title: Tournament Conclusion Fixes
[snip]
{
Each time that one or more winners of a tournament are determined before
it concludes, that
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, nix via agora-business wrote:
I submit and pay one pendant to pend the following proposal:
[snip]
Amend R2621, VP Wins, to read in full:
The Victory Threshold is 20-5x, where x is the number of months
since the last time someone Took Over The Economy. If it
On Tue, 7 Sep 2021, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Fix asset self-ratification
(AI = 3, co-authors = ais523, Telna)
Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by replacing this text:
This portion of that entity's report is
self-ratifying.
with this text:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2021, Trigon via agora-business wrote:
All I was going to say is that I grant myself a victory point pursuant to my
focus.
Well then, why don't you?
Whistles innocently,
Ørjan.
On Mon, 30 Aug 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
[snip]
//
ID: 8599
Title: The Device (mark 2)
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: G.
Co-authors: Murphy
[inspired by Rules 2192-2193, "The Monster", by Murphy]
Enact a Rule
On Mon, 16 Aug 2021, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
--
Amend Rule 2644 (The Gauntlet) to read in full:
A player CAN, by announcement, Notice the Gauntlet, specifying a
single player that owns 5 or more stones,
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote:
Robin Hood Stone (weekly, 100%): Transfer this stone to a player with less
coins than you, then the original wielder gains 8 boatloads of coins.
SPECIAL RULE: This stone never escapes as long as at least three players
have owned it in the
On Mon, 9 Aug 2021, Ned Strange via agora-official wrote:
Fora
The publicity switch values (Rule 478) are self-ratifying.
PublicityLocation or description Typical use
---- ---
Public agora-official at
On Sun, 1 Aug 2021, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote:
The Ribbon Bar (Tailor's Monthly Report) as of Monday 2021-07-26
On Sun, 25 Jul 2021, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
For the purposes of Now We Nomic AND Agora, and for the purposes of
creating a new Rule and Agoran Contract respectively, I create the
following NWN Rule / Agoran Contract:
---+---
All other Now We Nomic rules besides this one are
On Sun, 25 Jul 2021, Rebecca Lee via agora-discussion wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 11:06 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
I CFJ the following:
"Be X the first Judge assigned to this CFJ, the entirety of the Ruleset
means the following:
This is the
On Thu, 17 Jun 2021, Rebecca Lee via agora-discussion wrote:
[snip a _whole_ lot]
=== END OF REPORT ===
--
nix
Webmastor, Ministor, Herald
Important COE: Jason was awarded a doctorate of nomic science
--
From R. Lee
In fact, you awarded it to em.
--
From R. Lee
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
By including "purposeful", it covers scams; e.g. with Jason Cobb's 18,000
coins - the scammer would have at least the 4 day objection period to enjoy
eir earnings or convert it to a win[*] or whatever.
[*]since winning and patent
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated, and not subsequently
publicly withdrawn eir statement, that e agrees to the action;
That last comma looks out of place.
Looks right to me, based on my intuitive comma placement
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020, James Cook wrote:
I object to both intents.
Sorry to prolong this, but I'm not convinced this gets around Ørjan's
objection. Here are two modifications to the gamestate that could be
made at 00:15:01 on Dec 14 that would make the first document true:
a) Insert two events
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
You forgot to strip trailing spaces, so these again have that
format=flowed problem.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote:
Ørjan's issue is that e believes a single ratification can't make
retroactive changes at two different points in past time.
I suppose that's a simple way of putting it, except I'd use "simulate"
instead of "make".
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote:
On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 03:32 +0100, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
The simplest way I can see to fix this is to pair each dubious email with
its own ratifying document, specifying the date stamp of the message as
the time
Rule 1551 states:
the gamestate is modified
to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was
published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the
ratified document as true and accurate as possible;
As I mentioned in my previous message, there's no reverse DNS on
vps.qoid.us, which I could imagine some servers caring about.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019, omd via agora-official wrote:
On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:00 PM omd wrote:
I think at this point there's nothing I can do but
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019, omd wrote:
Will Gmail deliver a list message if it's sent from a different IP?
Maybe this is a good time to remind you (you never responded to my
original message) that back in June/July (I think) I had trouble receiving
list email because the list IP got on a global
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:
Sorry, one more test. In this one, I've removed the spaces on otherwise
blank lines:
As you noted, that was it. The reason this matters is the following header
line in the messages:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
The
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:
[This is accurate to the best of my knowledge. It is very likely that I have
missed or messed up something. You can see the changes from Trigon's last SLR
at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/ruleset/tree/dec5.]
I deputise for Rulekeepor to publish the
It was 1992 (As You Know, Agora is from 1993), and the meaning of the
words may have shifted, but I don't think people would have called Nomic
World a MOO at the time. I never got a look at its actual source code,
but as I recall the interface resembled more LPMud (the MUD style I was
already
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:
//
ID: 8266
Title: Glitter
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: nch
Co-authors:
Enact a Power-1 rule titled "Glitter" with the following text {
If a player has earned a ribbon in the past 7
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 11/7/19 5:18 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
[snip]
Rule 478/36
Fora [Excerpt]
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
clearly specifying
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:
I transfer 500 of D. Margaux's Coins to Jason Cobb.
[Anti-No Faking (although the CFJ should make it obvious): the above action
might not work.]
I CFJ, barring D. Margaux: "In this message, Jason Cobb transferred a Coin."
Evidence:
{
Rule 478/36
How did I end up co-author of that?
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
Proposal: Interested proposals
(co-author = Oerjan)
Create a rule titled "Interested Proposals" with this text:
Interest is an untracked proposal switch with values
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:
Possible relevant: CFJ 3452 [0].
[0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3452
The quoting of Rule 1728/33 in that case doesn't seem contain the blank
lines that the arguments talk about...
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote:
{
Amend rule 2350 “Proposals” as follows:
* replace “A player CAN create a proposal by announcement“ with “A player CAN
create a proposal With 23 Hours Notice.”
* after the list, add a new paragraph: “Additionally, a player CAN, but SHALL
NOT, create
On Wed, 23 Oct 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 10/23/2019 7:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 10/23/2019 4:52 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> BTW I think the safety in the last paragraph of Rule 1885 is buggy: if
you
> had done this _between_ the auction end and the winner paying, e would
&
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_izvAbhExY
I switch my master switch to myself
As I expected. :P
BTW I think the safety in the last paragraph of Rule 1885 is buggy: if you
had done this _between_ the auction end and the winner paying, e would
still
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 10/18/19 5:05 PM, Nch wrote:
When a player registers for the first time since this proposal was passed,
they enter the Popularity* Contest automatically.
Possible ambiguity: is this registration for the first time ever (that
happens to be after the
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
* players SHALL NOT clearly identify this rule - doing so is the
Class 1 Crime of Uttering the Forbidden Name.
Any player CAN, without objection, exorcise this rule (cause it to
repeal itself).
Do you envision a way
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:
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. Rules to the contrary
Your proposal numbers have some off-by-100 errors.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019, James Cook wrote:
Votes inline.
IDAuthor(s) AITitle
---
8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
Amend item 3 of the only list of Rule 2528 ("Voting Methods") to read:
3. For an instant runoff decision, non-empty ordered lists for which
each element is a valid option.
The current "entities" text was introduced on purpose in 2017 by Alexis's
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, James Cook wrote:
I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will
judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there could
be doubt about this.
6. An interpretation causing CFJ 3726 to be FALSE
No method? There might be a Rule 2125 problem here.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
Good question. Rule 2141 says that the Rulekeepor can assign a number, and
doesn’t say in what way e must do so, so e could theoretically assign any
number. You’re right that this
I vaguely seem to recall that there is precedent that payments for
something fail entirely if it's impossible for them to achieve that
something.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Thu, 30 May 2019, James Cook wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 03:34, Rance Bedwell wrote:
I make a COE for this Treasuror's
As on the previous occasion, I got the original message.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sat, 11 May 2019, D. Margaux wrote:
Below is Murphy’s message from the website, which somehow hasn’t come through.
I declare candidacy for Assessor.
Can you have an election for imposed offices? I thought
I received it, so it at least got out of the server.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
I haven't gotten this email yet [1]. It shows up in the archive, but
not in my inbox. Is anyone else having this problem?
Also, I don't believe the decision on who should be Prime
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I intend to ratify the below Herald's list of Patent Titles and holders as
being correct as of its publication date of 31-Mar-2019, Without Objection.
[This would not ratify the informal categories of championship].
Are you sure?
Greetings,
Ørjan.
It was not published, twg is simply referring jokingly to emself, as e is
the Assessor.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, James Cook wrote:
twg's message says the H. Assessor publish the below tally, but I
didn't receive any emails containing it, and I can't find it in the
public
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
I respond to the CoE by citing the CFJ.
(I swear I remember there being a proto floating around at some point to
change it so that just the existence of a relevant open CFJ would block
self-ratification, instead of having to go through this
This needs to be done after the intent fixing proposal passes, anyway,
since rule changes are explicitly _not_ fixed and this won't be in the
ruleset that is being ratified.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, James Cook wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 00:59, James Cook wrote:
I intend to
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Having achieved Agoran Consent', I do so.
Consent' is the type of Consent that fails now, but willan on-succeed
forewhen Proposal 8164 retrotakes pre-effect.
I am not entirely sure this way of disclaiming doesn't cause it to wioll
haven broke, since
This is broken. As I pointed out in a previous comment on this proposal,
rule 2591 no longer contains this text.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sun, 3 Mar 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
//
ID: 8169
Title: Spaceship Armour Defaults
Missing obvious kind of extreme case:
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains the word “Walruses”.
Power 1: Walruses are a currency tracked by the Zoologist. [...]
}
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Some thought experiments:
{
Power
It seems to me that this would cause a heap of complications in writing
proposals, which would need to include safeguards against disastrous
partial applications. For example, a proposal that splits an important
rule into two parts, by amending the original and creating a new one,
could
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Please look at the Caller's "two assumptions" arguments in CFJ 1104, I was
on the fence when this conversation started, but reading those arguments is
what convinced me: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104
Those arguments explicitly
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:57 AM Gaelan Steele wrote:
The proposed rule is a prohibition on a certain type of change.
Because 106 says “except as prohibited by other rules”, it defers to
this rule.
Deference clauses only work between rules of the
That particular item of the Rule was just amended to change that text,
although it still needs a default.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Amend Rule 2591, "Spaceships", by replacing the following:
* Armour (an integer switch limited to values from 0 to 10
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:
5. Rule 2465 says: "Upon doing so, the specified players win the game."
When we talk about "Doing X" for any X, we almost always take X to refer
to the Action ("Declaring apathy") and not the method (without
objection). R2125 supports this in that it
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote:
Going to use Gluttony instead of Cincinnatus because it's just easier to
remember and type off the top of my head and it's more on the theme of
cardinal sins and having amassed all that power feels obese. There's also
the issue that once you have that
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in
which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry
the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent
actions otherwise tend not to
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
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,
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
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
My reading justifies the Agoran invasion better.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
I rather hoped the “mutatis mutandis” was implied.
-Aris
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
BlogNomic almost
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
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).
Wait, BlogNomic
of objectors? Do
we even have anything right now that works that way? Do we *want* to have
anything right now that works that way?
If it's one where you choose which one to declare your intent with, I don't
see how it causes a problem.
On 2019-02-15 12:11, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
Quoting myself from my
nd
I'm not sure everyone would interpret that as true. Just seemed easier
to phrase in the negative way.
Will think more about it later, but suggestions welcome.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were
confus
I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were
confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to
make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are
supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic.
Instead I'd
1 - 100 of 739 matches
Mail list logo
