On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 04:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
On Wed, 23/4/14, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it looks like hazing isn't a crime anymore so... I CFJ on
x1122334455, putting forth tradition as my main
On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 09:32 -0400, x1122334455 wrote:
On 4/23/14 at 4:11pm, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 3:34 PM, x1122334455 wrote:
I register
Well, it looks like hazing isn't a crime anymore so... I CFJ on
x1122334455, putting
On Mon, 5/5/14, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Num Author AI Title
7641 scshunt 2 Relative Months
FOR
7642 Fool 3 On breaking the game
AGAINST
If possible, I make the same votes.
--
ais523
On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 17:42 -0400, Henri Bouchard wrote:
I propose the following:
--
Proposal: Mandatory Identification
Create a new Rule, titled Mandatory Identification:
When publishing a message to the fora,
On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 18:04 -0400, Henri Bouchard wrote:
Aha, that's an automatic signature, right? I'll work around that.
I actually type it by hand, but it follows the Usenet/email conventions
for signatures: two hyphens and a space to mark the start of the
signature block, so that other
On Tue, 13/5/14, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk
wrote:
7649 scshunt 2 I always thought these already ratifie
AGAINST; this doesn't allow for implicit switches, and so I think it
might cause all the old CFJs
On Sat, 2014-06-07 at 18:29 -0400, Henri Bouchard wrote:
Who actually thinks Mandatory Identification is a good idea? When I
was proposing it, I didn't think it would be such a big problem for
everybody, but now it seems we should just repeal it. What do you
think?
I supported it precisely
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 20:03 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Jun 19, 2014 5:19 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Henri Bouchard
henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, what does H stand for in H. Henri?
-Henri
It stands for
On Sun, 2014-06-22 at 01:44 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I issue a Green Card to scshunt, for breaching rule 2143 by
publishing
an inaccurate Scorekeepor report. Green, because the mistake
On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 12:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
ok now I've done my offical duties and I'm sitting bored in three
days of meetings so I want to do something here, but nothing's
going on... what next...
I had an idea for a new gameplay/economy thing I wanted to proto, but I
don't have
On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 13:28 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
Are you interested in working out the details of something like this?
Happy to try. But main issue I've had in the past is coming up with
specific abilities that people actually want to use. Do
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 19:34 -0500, Chester Mealer wrote:
If I can object to a single name, I object to my own (cdm014),
otherwise I object to the entire motion.
If the motion works at all, then you can object to single names in it,
because there's no deregister-multiple-people-at-once
On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 21:29 -0400, Tanner Swett wrote:
Gratuitous arguments for CFJ 3424: I would have considered adoption
index of a rule to be an unambiguous synonym of power of a rule,
since there's no other actual thing that it could refer to. (I guess
it could refer to a rule's
On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 05:15 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
There are six other offices; two are empty, Henri holds
the other four, and all are missing reports.
My report crossed with Henri's (meaning that I guess I've violated the
rules in a trivial manner), but this means that we now have six vacant
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 10:53 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, comex wrote:
Proposal: Citrine Card Repeal (AI=2)
Hey hey hey, the previous citrine repeals were more than just cards!
Not gonna get my vote on some without the whole...
Also, just a reflection. When we wrote the
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 09:28 -0400, Tanner Swett wrote:
I intend, without objection, to ratify the document consisting of the
Office and Holder columns of the table in the below report.
They're self-ratifying (R1006 defines officeholder as a switch; why
isn't it officeholdor, come to think of
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 09:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
Time to reflect on this again. November 2009 was a time of widespread
belief that the game was stalling, potentially stopping. It had pagesful
of messages every day, but the economy was collapsing
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 17:40 -0400, Tanner Swett wrote:
+ The Assessor currently seems to have no report; this is the date
that e most recently resolved a proposal.
The Scorekeepor also has no report, because we undefined recordkeepor
without noticing; nowadays it only has an effect on
On Sun, 2014-08-31 at 16:59 -0600, Sprocklem wrote:
On 2014-08-31 16:53, Luis Ressel wrote:
Remark: As I noted on the -discussion list, I think the replacement
text represents the current situation anyway.
I believe the rule was changed to how it is currently with the intention
that the
On Mon, 2014-09-01 at 23:14 +0100, Luis Ressel wrote:
I hereby deputise for the Promotor to distribute each listed proposal,
initiating the Agoran Decision of whether to adopt it. For this
decision, the eligible voters are the active players at the time of
this distribution, the vote
On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 23:14 +0100, Luis Ressel wrote:
I really like this RPG idea, but I think the two previous proposals
were too vague. I've made an attempt at rewriting them. The text needs
some proofreading, as this is my first attempt at a more complex
ruleset (and not being a native
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 14:00 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Of if you prefer older history, Lindrum judged 3 minutes or so as long
enough to provide for reasonable public review of the Lindrum World
judgement, before e declared that it had worked. -G.
Was that genuinely believed to have worked,
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 18:33 -0400, omd wrote:
Those who aren't won't, but they might take
a week or month to show up, or never do so at all before being
deregistered for inactivity...
Counterargument: Sprocklem is probably not actively reading the lists.
I'd explictly attempted to draw eir
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 18:47 -0400, omd wrote:
Another counterargument: G. posted a message to Agora within the 4 day
limit, but not between when you posted the intent and when you tried to
resolve it. It's entirely possible e only started actively reading Agora
as a result of the recent
On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 20:28 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
First, I put explicitly high standards on defining the process in
this case, precisely because it is part of R105, precisely *not*
allowing informality. I would not have this high a standard for
any other process.
Even though I should
On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 09:23 -0400, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
I support. I don't know if omd's scam attempt actually succeeded, but
saying it didn't because I hereby provide public notice that I intend
to do X != I intend, with Notice, to do X feels like a pretty weak
claim to me as well. If
On Sat, 2014-10-04 at 15:00 -0400, omd wrote:
I intend to deputise for the Dungeon Master to publish eir report.
That was probably a strategic mistake, given that your main hope of this
working would be for me to forget. (I hadn't forgotten, though.)
--
ais523
DM
, accomplish things merely by being an
announcement. Our by announcement definitions are one way to do this,
but not the only way. Imagine if I published I inform Agora's players
that my name is Alex Smith.. This has no rules-defined effect; but it
isn't the ISIDTID fallacy, because the mere fact
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 17:09 +0200, James Beirne wrote:
White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never
previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous rulesets). A
player who has been registered for at least 30 days and has never caused
another person to gain a
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 09:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
Using the mechanism defined in rule 2437, I cause rule 2437 to set its
own text to the following:
Fails under current standing judgement. No review has taken place.
Sure, but I think your
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 09:28 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Specifically, no rules-defined review process. You tried to do this
by announcement. By announcement has no review. -G.
To argue the point rather than the procedure, what makes a proposal have
any more review than an announcement that
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 09:53 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If the Proposal text changed mid-stream, then there is more wrong with
the process. For example, the voting notice that started the voting
(R107) no longer refers to the matter being decided. In that case,
the text might be R105 ambiguous
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 10:09 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
What makes this different from processes that aren't written down in the
rules?
Which ones? Examples would be really helpful! Especially examples
of what happens when these processes are CFJ'd
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 10:41 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Looking at that one, the only fail/success mechanism *is* by announcement,
so that's the only basis for judging whether a judicial assignment
succeeds.
The requirement for the Arbitor to have further procedure to ensure
fairness is a
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 11:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If a Rule actually said you could do a change With Notice, than we'd ask
how much Notice was enough, and ask per instance if there was anything
wrong with it. In fact, if Induction still existed, I would opine that
By Announcement means
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 11:44 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Mine is more: A rule says do X to accomplish Z. A higher rule says
things like X are not sufficient to accomplish Z. Therefore you can't
do X to accomplish Z.
Now you would say but I invented X+Y, which is actually *better* than
X!
On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 16:46 +, Eritivus wrote:
I could probably be easily convinced to retract this Brief.
I think that the fact that (this part of) omd's scam became generally
accepted can be explained by the fact that equivocation can be difficult
to detect, especially if one sense is
On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 06:45 +, Eritivus wrote:
Note: I have not submitted a Brief yet, because I was deregistered when
I attempted to do so.
I'm pondering whether to resubmit as is, expand, or abandon.
From my point of view, opinions are what's important, and the moot
process is a
On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 20:02 -0400, omd wrote:
It's from Rule 2141:
A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the
game generally, and is always taking effect.
Oh right. I remember disliking that wording even when it was added, but
I got outvoted.
Just out of
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 19:51 +, Eritivus wrote:
I guess the power of rules enacted by illicit fast track ratification
actually can't be more than 3, since the fast track rule has power 3?
So not as worrisome as I thought.
A Power-3 rule can do anything, though, because the Power
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 17:12 -0400, omd wrote:
With the house rules interpretation I think there is an implicit
assumption that the judgement must actually have been made in good
faith, following a reasonable process, etc. Your statement here
suggests that a judgement would have to be taken as
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 14:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
By the way, my own way of monkeying with the Moot process
is just failing to resolve it within the 14 day Notice
dependency window. It's not clear at all what happens then!
It may leave the case in permanent limbo... that's bad
rule
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 15:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I'm interested in how trapped it makes the Case itself, though,
as a mechanism. Can't be resolved after 14 days, but can't be
restarted either.
A long time ago, I went to quite a bit of effort to set up a CFJ that
nobody was obligated to
On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 09:52 -0400, Tanner Swett wrote:
On Oct 24, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 09:36 -0400, Tanner Swett wrote:
I create a Province character called Redgroat. Redgroat looks around.
The Rulekeepor ruled that you couldn't do that because
On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 12:03 -0500, Chester Mealer wrote:
I deregister and vote yes on all matters which I am able.
Chester Mealer
Were you a player /before/ doing that?
If not, this is hilarious.
If yes, this is also hilarious, but for a different reason.
--
ais523
On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 12:40 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
wrote:
7706 3 omd Fast Track
AGAINST. For some reason I don't trust omd with rapidly-adopted
proposals right now.
On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 06:24 +, Eritivus wrote:
Why were contracts repealed? So far all I've discovered is that the
repeal occurred during a lull in Feb 2010.
Contracts was the obvious answer to a question I had about an
idea, so I was pleasantly surprised to see your proposal.
I'm FOR
On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 08:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
One of the biggest issues with Economies since the Big One fell apart
in 2003 is that no one seems to want to pay to distribute Proposals
anymore - there's been a strong ethos against that for years now
that didn't used to exist. Without
On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 09:37 -0600, Sprocklem wrote:
I can't think of any in Agora that is really high value to back it. It
might be interesting to tie the economic system into The Province's
economy, where you would need to pay in order to accomplish certain
things in the sub-game.
Things
On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 09:59 -0600, Sprocklem wrote:
On 2014-10-27 09:47, Alex Smith wrote:
* Wins / assets that let you win;
* Votes on proposals (both over a time period, and on a single
proposal);
* The ability to disable/penalise other players. [I
On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 09:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
Things that have traditionally consistently been of high economic value:
For traditionally defined since 2007.
Before 2007, the three pillars were (1) the ability to distribute proposals,
(2
On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 12:59 -0400, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Is the current breakage due to competing candidate gamestates for
R2437? If so, would unambiguously changing that Rule resolve the
situation enough?
Yes, and almost (you also need to account for the possibility that the
rule doesn't
On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 09:57 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
That's a great idea (I'm assuming you mean basically pay to keep your
contracts in play for whatever we define is in play?). This can
have a double trading as you could trade Contracts entire as well
as whatever currencies are used to pay
On Sat, 2014-11-01 at 15:30 -0700, Eritivus wrote:
Sorry, what errors exactly?
The ones where the rules letting non-DMs act were never created.
My understanding would have been that, as DM, it would be legal for
you to ratify the Warrigal's hypothetical changes.
It's ambiguous whether it's
On Sun, 2014-11-02 at 21:45 -0500, omd wrote:
Ditto - the previous proposal added a Scorekeeper but not a Scorekeepor.
I was going to call the variations in spelling or dialect rule on you,
but it seems to have been repealed (or at least, I can't find it in the
ruleset). That might make quite a
On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 11:28 -0700, Sprocklem wrote:
On 2014-11-09 01:16, Alex Smith wrote:
ROGCBMUVIPLWK
araneaC W
Sprocklem C
04/11/14 aranea+W (new to Ribbons)
04/11/14 aranea+C (deputizing for Tailor)
06/11/14 Sprocklem +W (new to Ribbons
On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 23:03 +0100, Luis Ressel wrote:
[Text shamelessly stolen from ais523. @ais523, weren't you planning to
take over this office?]
As far as I know, I can't until you miss a report, or you resign in a
week where you haven't published the report yet. I was waiting to see if
On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 13:35 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I just realized that voting may be a poor test case, as it could
be argued (barely, but perhaps within the bounds of reason) that these
amount to Endorsements.
If that works as an endorsement, then my attempts to vote on proposals
that
So, recently, there's been a bunch of people (including me) deciding
that we need some substitute for Contracts/Promises, and a bunch of
people (including me) deciding that we need an economy. So this is my
proposal for a proposal for Organizations, which are designed to work as
a Contract
On Wed, 2014-11-19 at 10:23 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
The Secretary is an office, responsible for tracking Organizations and
related gamestate. The duties of the Secretary are described elsewhere.
Suggest describing the minimal Report here, up top
On Wed, 2014-11-19 at 10:30 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
There's been quite a bit of effort in this to shut down possible scams
pre-emptively; in particular, I've tried my best to prevent anything
similar to Fool's attempted scam, and any scams along
On Wed, 2014-11-19 at 10:55 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I should note: I'm thinking of this broadly, and wondering if we should
place a generic definition of random choice back in the ruleset so
defining random (and penalties for cheating random) doesn't have to
fall on your Org rules.
I'd
On Wed, 2014-11-19 at 16:07 -0500, omd wrote:
Does Awarding a Medal count as a modification to an Organization?
It's not actually relevant. The reason I used Appropriate/Inappropriate
rather than some previously defined term was so that for changes where
appropriateness wasn't specifically
On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 11:02 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Hey folks,
If I put up a (in programming sense trivial) dice server tailored
to Agoran needs, are there folks out there who know a little bit
about security who can advise on a way it can be trusted?
(E.g. Hash of the source code
On Wed, 2014-11-19 at 10:30 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
There's been quite a bit of effort in this to shut down possible scams
pre-emptively; in particular, I've tried my best to prevent anything
similar to Fool's attempted scam, and any scams along
On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 14:36 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
Anyway, the upshot of all this is that despite looking reasonable, the
current definition of randomness simply doesn't work.
Which definition? The non-existent one currently not in the rules
On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 15:08 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
This is orthogonal to whether we can *prove* that a roll was fair
versus having being interfered with (by rejecting certain outcomes,
which doesn't fit my definition of fair), or what happens with delays
(which is why I proposed a fix -
On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 17:09 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Ok, the list. Unfair is shorthand for wrong probability.
[snip]
OK, I think I understand your point better now. The argument is that if
there's a possibility that someone might do anything to interfere with
the result, the entire process
On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 13:28 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
7730* Henri 1.0 Monthly Deportation
I just noticed that this proposal is broken, as Citizenship is Secured-3
(R869).
The proposal is only broken if the ruleset's already broken; it's
telling the Registrar to attempt to use
On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 14:01 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Alex Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 13:28 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
7730* Henri 1.0 Monthly Deportation
I just noticed that this proposal is broken, as Citizenship is Secured-3
(R869
On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 08:39 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
As an aside to that last bit: the corresponding principle to CAN
implies CANNOT for everyone else would be SHALL implies NEED NOT for
everyone else? SHALL and SHALL NOT are opposite, but not
complementary.
So yeah, this is not a
On Mon, 2015-01-12 at 10:45 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
This is the DISCUSSION PHASE, players are ENCOURAGED to discuss
which proposals best fit the above criteria. Votes happen later.
To START the DISCUSSION, please find below:
(1) a Herald's SHORT LIST of influential Proposals, and
On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 20:22 -0700, Sprocklem wrote:
What happened with the discussion about economies from the bring back
contracts thread a few months ago? Was it just forgotten or did
everyone decide an economy wasn't worth pursuing at this point in time?
Not forgotten. I was very busy
On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 00:33 +0100, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Alex Smith wrote:
7733* Murphy 1.0 Sincere flattery
You stole that idea off BlogNomic, didn't you?
Oh, that explains the strange title.
It's pretty much /the/ core mechanic of BlogNomic. (That said
On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 00:48 -0500, omd wrote:
Proposal: Recess (AI=3)
Create a new Power-3 Rule, Recess:
Let it be known that, the Players having vacated to spend more
time with their other mental Constituents, Agora is in Recess.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding,
On Sun, 2015-03-29 at 12:02 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
10. HOWEVER, no one goes back and re-calls the original question; in
THIS PARTICULAR case, whether omd's 3.9 days was insufficient while
ais523's 4.1 days was sufficient.
So the question remains unresolved.
This fits with my
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 06:39 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote:
For the record, this dates back to the IADoP report of 2014-10-15, and
was equally vague back then. A quick scan of a-b around that same time
turns up an attempted scam involving the office, but nothing obviously
suggesting that Rule 2437
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 05:17 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote:
~ May not exist (reason unknown)
If we had a working criminal justice system, I'd consider crimming you
for excessive vagueness here. (I'd identify the violated rule as 2143,
and conveniently neglect to identify which paragraph.)
Part of
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 15:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
There's always plans.
We have tons of plans, just need people to start playing before we can
use them.
Or to put it another way, nobody's going to start playing unless people
start playing :-(
--
ais523
On Sun, 2015-04-19 at 16:41 +0200, Luis Ressel wrote:
I finally got around to reading the Organizations thread from last
December, which seems to have died after it dissolved into a discussion
about randomness. I know stadjer was planning to revive it, but there
haven't been any news from his
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 09:24 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Opinions sought: how to phrase the following correctly?
(in a power-3 rule)
Winning is Secured, except as explicitly permitted in
Erratic Rules.
(does this successfully give power-1 Erratic rules the ability
to define working
On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 12:54 +0200, Luis Ressel wrote:
or to a switch
that pertains to an Organization or a pair including that
Organization
I probably wrote this bit originally, but this sort of wording has been
implicated in at least two very high-profile scams (one in which
On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 13:03 +0200, Luis Ressel wrote:
I submit the following proposal [Only change: Add or all but one in
the first line]:
We tried that before. It didn't end well.
--
ais523
On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 11:02 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote:
Title: Organizations
AI: 3
Author: ais523
Co-Authors: aranea
INEFFECTIVE, see Rule 2350:
The author (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the person who submitted
On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 17:31 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
3. A Rule with an ID number takes precedence over a Rule with a
lesser ID number.
Why are you reversing the ID number precedence rule? (In particular,
what interaction are you expecting to change?) Rules with lower numbers
tend
On Sun, 2015-05-17 at 18:35 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
On May 18, 2015 07:28, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Statement: aranea won the game.
Does anyone have any arguments as to why e didn't? If not, I will judge
TRUE.
The only potential way it didn't work, that I can think of,
On Sun, 2015-05-17 at 16:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2015, Luis Ressel wrote:
You, on the other hand, only wrote Proposal: [...]. I've accepted
such submissions in the past, but I'm not sure if I actually have to
(or even can). Furthermore, in your case, the Proto: in the
On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 12:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2015, Alex Smith wrote:
Gray (Y): The Tailor CAN award a Gray Ribbon by announcement, unless e
has done so earlier in the month. E is ENCOURAGED to award such a Ribbon
in the same message in which e publishes eir monthly
On Sat, 2015-05-30 at 01:11 +0200, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2015, Alex Smith wrote:
I endorse aranea.
--
ais523
who has a feeling that this doesn't actually work
Are you referring to endorsing for support/objection (which doesn't seem
to be an Agoran decision and so
On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 15:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Luis Ressel wrote:
I award myself a Gray Ribbon.
You know, renaming this game Tailor is kingmaker, don't bother really
takes the interest out of this for me.
I'm often surprised by what does and doesn't annoy you.
On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 13:55 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
If another person begins to qualify for a Magenta ribbon after the
sending of this message, I also give them a Magenta ribbon as long as
this would not directly result in eir victory.
This half doesn't work; you can't schedule future
On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 09:27 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Aug 17, 2015 9:16 AM, Tanner Swett tannersw...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit the quoted proposal.
—the Warrigal
Unless I'm mistaken, Trust Tokens were repealed as a result of our victory.
I don't think Eras are necessarily tied to
On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 04:34 +, woggle wrote:
WHEREAS the yoyo mailing list appears to have died, and
WHEREAS the only way to be sure it is dead is to kill it yourself,
I intend, without objection, to change the Publicity of the Public Forum at
nomic at yoyo.its.monash.edu.au to
On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 16:00 -0400, omd wrote:
- More generally, there should be a guide for new players. For
inspiration, here is a 20-year-old(!) Agora Guidebook:
http://agora.qoid.us/www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/agora_vanyel0/agora/guidebook.html
It's surprising how much has changed, and how
On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 21:01 -0400, omd wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:31 PM, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
I was aware of this. You may notice I failed to send the intent to
agora-business.
Proposal: in the announcement by which the Registrar makes that forum
public is sent to all
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 13:01 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
Happy Birthday Agora!
Just as a note to all the non-players doing this to DIS:.
If you do it to BUS:, you can get a Ribbon. (You can't award yourself
one, but a player can do it for you as long as the Birthday celebrations
are still
On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 16:01 +, Christopher Harrington wrote:
I intend to de-register.
Deregistration is by announcement, so this doesn't work; it's
interpreted as a (non-binding) statement that you plan to deregister at
some later date, rather than deregistering you now. You probably just
On Mon, 2015-08-10 at 22:51 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I deputize for the Prime Minister to appoint scshunt to the office of
Speaker.
I award myself a Red Ribbon, a Platinum Ribbon, and an Ultraviolet
Ribbon, and award
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 16:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Create the following Rule, Currencies:
// TODO: Define minimally working assets/currency transfer
// rules again. Assume for now it works like you might expect.
You know, I'd be (marginally) for putting this text right into the
On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 03:06 -0400, Tanner Swett wrote:
Proposal, AI 3, We don't need that
Amend Rule 1551 Ratification to read:
If an erroneous statement is made in an official report, and the error
is not publicly noted within 30 days, and the erroneous statement is
consistent with the
901 - 1000 of 1537 matches
Mail list logo
