I’m not entirely sure it works out that way. However, in any case, I think
you just found a power escalation vulnerability. If one had a power-1
dictatorship, one could amend a power-3 proposal just before it was about
to pass and then get a power three dictatorship. If you controlled the
office of
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:53 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Please review if you have an interest in a pending case - did I miss anything?
>
> Cases listed open in the Court Gazette May 27
> - CFJ 3726, later judged by Falsifian, no action needed
> - CFJ 3727, later judged by Falsifian, no
;
> ID numbers are entirely informal so anyone can assign them if they like.
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:31 AM Rebecca wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:16 AM Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:43 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:17 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > Note that (probably) only the Referee can assign an ID number to this
> > case. Under Rule 2246, "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee", "the Refe
Given how long it's been, and how many proposals there are, I'd like
to send out a draft rather than just getting everything wrong. Here's
that draft. There will be a small reward (plus my appreciation) for
any corrections!
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
I think they cover mostly the same semantic area. There might be some
difference around the edges, but the two expressions both seem to fit the
provided definition.
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:20 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> That seems like a reasonable distinction to me, at least.
>
> Jason Cob
> into a SHALL.
>
> More generally, R2231 aside, I just don't see a strong use case for
> codifying a capitalization for this (it doesn't fill in a missing
> grammatical construction or anything).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1
ake.
>
> Well I guess I'll just wait then :) I assume the first CFJ was still valid?
>
> From: agora-business on behalf of
> Aris Merchant
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 7:32:43 AM
> To: Agora Business
> Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auct
Good find! Yes, it is. That proposal would have accidentally required that
the report only be counted if it fulfilled all of the weekly or monthly
duties of an office; this phrasing avoids that problem.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:51 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Is this substantially different in
I think you’re misunderstanding what the word “limit” means (or at least
what it’s intended to mean, which may be different from what we’ll
interpret it to mean). Telling someone that they aren’t allowed to do
something does limit there ability to do it, it only limits the
permissibility of doing s
their ability to do it?
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/15/19 12:25 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I think you’re misunderstanding what the word “limit” means (or at least
> > what it’s intended to mean, which may be different from what we’ll
> > interpret it to mean). Telling so
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:34 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > In eir first judgement,
> > Judge Trigon opined that, in R2125, in this list:
> >
> >> An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
> >> permit its per
You might want to say that e must specify the number of Blots.
-Aris
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 4:25 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup
>
> Author: Jason Cobb
>
> Adoption Index: 1.7
>
> Text:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follo
It doesn’t actually require all capitals. It says "These definitions are
used when rule includes a term in all caps, and provide guidance in determining
the ordinary-language meaning of a term when a rule includes a term
otherwise." So we're allowed (and arguably encouraged) to interpret it as
esta
Okay, I never like being the one to do this, but someone has to. I'm
honestly sorry to be telling you this. I like the basic ideas of your
proposal, so it is with a heavy heart that I tell you that based on my
experience, I believe your proto has a critical flaw caused by the
process you used to wr
you're probably going to have to take another go at it.
> >>
> >> I fully expected this. That's why I submitted it to agora-discussion first
> >> :).
> >>
> >>
> >>> Specifically, I get the feeling that you took your core idea and started
> >>> thinking of all of the potential problems and expansions." What if
> >>> someone tries this?" "What if this gets interpreted this way?" "What if
> >>> someone wants to try this and can't?"
> >> Who are you and how did you get into my house?
> >>
> >>
> >>> the reason it's so massive is that you*tried* (and quite possibly
> >>> failed, because anticipating every possible consequence in advance is
> >>> basically impossible) to deal with all of the necessary consequences.
> >> Correction: definitely did fail. Pretty quickly after I submitted it, I
> >> thought up some pretty bad logical consequences from it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Jason Cobb
> >>
> >> On 6/19/19 5:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>> I think you're probably going to have to
> >>> take another go at it.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:32 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 20:22 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I intend with Agoran Consent to trigger Rule 2598, "Side-Game
> > Suspension".
>
> I was suspecting a possible scam here, but the list
Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:38 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> >
> >> I would suggest "regulating", but I feel like that could easily get
> >> confused with regulations.
> >>
> >>
> >> Jason Cobb
> >>
> >> On 6/19/19 11:24 PM, Aris Merchant
racts are binding", "Regulations are binding".
>
> "An entity is binding if and only if..."
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/19/19 11:37 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > I would suggest "regulating", but I feel like that could easily get
> > c
ed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:23 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > I intend with Agoran Consent to trigger Rule 2598, "Side-Game Suspension".
> >
> > For the public reference, the relevant provision of that rule is as follows:
> > "Any player CAN with Agoran Consent tr
Jun 19, 2019 at 8:49 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> If they've never been useful in the past... I don't see a future use for
> them. It's true that there's no longer the total sinecure of Regkeepor. Rip
> the ACORN, you will not be missed.
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:46
I maintain that a SHALL NOT limits the permissibility of an action, not its
performance. If the rule referred to a limit on an action, rather than the
performance of an action, I might agree with you.
-Aris
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:28 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Limit, the first definition off of goog
Yeah, I’d agree with that. It doesn’t seem like that’s what the judge is
doing though. The judge seems to be saying that that interpetation is
*correct*, but that e can’t judge the case on that basis.
-Aris
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:38 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I think to consider a forbidden inte
I’m for this solution. Moots are kinda lousy at consensus building, due to
the limited number of voting options.
-Aris
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 8:39 PM Rebecca wrote:
> why don't we just judge this cfj irrelevant because no consequences can be
> imposed for any crimes anyway, and nobody would si
If we’re doing this, it should be instant runoff.
-Aris
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:37 PM Rebecca wrote:
> I would like us all to informally vote TRUE, FALSE, PARADOXICAL, DISMISS or
> IRRELEVANT on CFJ 3737, the subject of so much discussion in the other
> thread. This would help to determine wh
I would like to remain as Promotor, if the public doesn’t mind.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I support the intent for ADoP.
>
> If any non-incumbent supports the others and notes that they want to be a
> candidate, I'll support those too. Happy to keep doing tai
Murhpy’s statement is true, it’s just incomplete. It’s not true that
unregulated actions CAN intrinsically be performed by announcement, but it
is true that regulated actions CANNOT be performed except as the rules
explicitly permit. To put this another way, there may be nothing in the
rules that s
It’s kind of hard to communicate subtleties over text, so just so I’m
clear: I’d really, really, really like to remain Promotor. :)
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:53 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to remain as Promotor, if the public doe
supporters from performing it;
>
> Rule 2598 ("Side-Game Suspension") contains no such clause to prohibit
> supporters from doing so.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/21/19 10:32 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:18 PM James Cook
> wrote:
> &g
could probably
> be construed as a lie or a falsehood published in a report.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/21/19 10:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I assure you, I’m not plotting anything malevolent. I just really enjoy the
> > work, and it’s become part of my routine. I’d deeply m
nounced intent. Do you happen to know if
> > there is precedent for this?
> >
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 6/21/19 10:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > Yes, but then I’d be installed into the relevant office. I don’t want
> > > a
This proposal codifies a few common sense rules about timelines. For
instance, retroactive modifications are possible, but work by creating
a legal fiction, rather than by changing what actually happened. It
also establishes one major new rule: the standard sequence of events
is secured at power 3.
Thank you for all the comments! My responses are inline.
> Overall: Seems quite well designed. Personally I'd prefer to just ban
> retroactive modifications, but this proposal would do a good job of
> codifying the existing precedent.
Thank you! Banning retroactivity might be more elegant, in a
t there isn't one in the current rule.
-Aris
> I don't really take any issue with the substance of the proposal, it all
> seems reasonable to me.
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/21/19 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > This proposal codifies a few common sense r
Okay, after hearing your logic, I think agree with your general ideas
here, but I'd really like #1 and #2 to be explicitly specified
somewhere. It would give us something to direct new players to, and
something to cite in CFJs when the principle comes up. Would you be
opposed to such an explicit pr
ery fun.
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:33 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay, after hearing your logic, I think agree with your general ideas
> > here, but I'd really like #1 and #2 to be explicitly specified
> > somewh
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:57 PM omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 PM Jason Cobb
> wrote:
> > In my view, "inherent meaning" is a bit vague. I certainly could write
> > up a document that suggests a change to the laws of my country, print a
> > bunch of copies, and then start handing th
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:16 AM omd wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > Also, the bit in Mother May I should still go in the regulated actions
> > rule. Let's keep all the regulated action stuff in one place. I really like
>
any official
> >>> proceeding.
> >> with the text
> >>
> >>> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> >>> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
> >>>
Here's a draft of my Promotor report. My standard reward policy for
catching errors is in effect.
-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 Assesso
rounding works
out.
> > CoE: This leaves out my votes on Telnaior's behalf, which change the
> > outcome of at least one proposal I think (8184).
>
>
> Also, what exactly is your "standard reward policy"?
A small reward of coins and my sincere gratitude.
-Aris
&g
I thought Proposal 8181 did that?
-Aris
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:11 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> uh nobody's fixed the Cold Hand of Justice?
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:07 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 22
which proposal resolution counts as
> the most recent?
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/22/19 10:07 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> >> Quorum might be wrong, given this CoE on the Assessor report by G (in a
> >> reply to
I’m not seeing anything to indicate that you’re submitting that as a
proposal; if you want to, make sure you say so.
-Aris
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Maybe a more general fix would be in order for auctions?
>
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2551 ("Action End") as follows:
>
>
No, the lying rule only applies if you were trying to mislead people.
-Aris
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 8:35 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Alright. So am I on the hook for lying to a public forum, then?
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/23/19 1:46 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 18:56, Jason Cobb
2019 at 12:26 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Can an AI 3.0 proposal create a power 3.1 Rule?
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/23/19 3:12 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal.
> >
> > -Aris
> > ---
> > Title: Timeline Control Ordnance v2
>
n Cobb
>
> On 6/23/19 3:30 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Yes. AI 3.0 proposals are functionally omnipotent. The reason lies in
> > Rule 2140, "Power Controls Mutability", which says:
> >
> > "No entity with power below the power of this rule can
> >
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 2:46 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2019-06-23 at 15:26 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > Can an AI 3.0 proposal create a power 3.1 Rule?
>
> Yes. However, players sometimes consider voting against proposals with
> AI less than the maximium Power they modify on p
It’s getting to the point where this is feeling inelegant again, which is
usually a very bad sign.
-Aris
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Here's v2 for further comment. Since we've got a while before the next
> distribution, I'll leave it up for much longer.
>
> omd: any of y
could have cause issues with contracts that purport to allow
> people to leave).
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/24/19 9:38 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > It’s getting to the point where this is feeling inelegant again, which is
> > usually a very bad sign.
> >
> > -Aris
If this goes to a CFJ, I favor that CFJ.
-Aris
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:23 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 6/24/2019 11:17 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > This is probably the easiest way to do this:
> >
> > For each number X that is an integral multiple of 0.1 not less than 1.0
> and
> > not exceeding
t; >
> > > I CFJ: Jason Cobb made an announcement of intent to banish the Ritual
> > > with 2.1 Agoran Consent that meets the clarity standards of R2595/0.
> > >
> > > (will slice and dice arguments/evidence from the below)
> > >
> > > On Tue,
There’s a slight problem with that wording. It doesn’t have to purport to
define or describe it, it just has to do so. Purporting to define or
describe something would be saying “I describe X”. Also, you’ve got to make
sure you phrase it in a way that allows entities to refer to actions
defined by
Wasn't there a fix proposal for this somewhere? I can't seem to find it.
-Aris
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:20 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 6/23/2019 3:10 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> > What happens is that the proposal gets set to Power 4 when being
> > resolved ("its power is set to th
Are you going to submit some version of this?
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:26 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Does this do the trick -
>
> Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing:
>Adoption index is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
>decisions and proposals, w
Ditto here. Happy birthday, and many returns!
-Aris
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 9:25 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> Happy Birthday, Agora!
>
> Just joining the chorus, I seem to have that ribbon already.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
> On Sat, 29 Jun 2019, James Cook wrote:
>
> > It's Agora's birthday. Hap
Sorry everyone, it doesn’t look like I’m going to get out a Promotor report
today, and I’m really busy IRL tomorrow. Incidentally, it would be really
great if we could get a fix for the power bug into the next distribution. I
expect my report to be late by two days or less, but if someone really
wa
I’m strongly tempted to move to reconsider this, and apologize for failing
to provide arguments earlier (honestly, I totally forgot about this case).
I really don’t think this opinion adequately considers the other sensible
possibility: that the proposal fails entirely.
To begin with, when someone
I don’t think this is a great idea. It seems like a rather large addition
of rule text to fix one specific incidence of a larger problem.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 11:30 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
>
> Title: Proposal AI fix
>
> Author: Jason Cobb
>
> AI: 3
>
>
I’d propose a different theory. Mine is cleaner and simpler, but I’m not
entirely sure which is actually better. Barring someone is a separate
action from calling the CFJ; it just has to be done in the same message. By
contrast, it’s a tad hard to argue that specifying the AI of a proposal is
someh
an incorrect AI should be allowed to succeed
> because an AI is optional. In my opinion only mandatory requirements should
> be made to be met for something to succeed.
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:31 AM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I’d
t
> the rules do provide a mechanism for creating a proposal, for naming
> authors etc, and none of that has to be rewritten.
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:24 AM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is possible that you’re correct. Ho
Switches need to specify a default value or they have a default value
of "null", which has the same problem.
-Aris
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:27 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> You could just state that
>
> > "none" is not a valid value for the adoption index of proposals.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/23/1
do, they
> don't say "you didn't say which options you wanted, no food for you",
> they serve up the default.
>
> On 7/1/2019 3:31 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I’d propose a different theory. Mine is cleaner and simpler, but I’m not
> > entirely sure which
If
> you went into a burger king and said "i want this burger with 1/2 of an
> extra pickle" the employee would say "we cannot cut these pickles in half,
> but we will give you one extra pickle, the default number of extra pickles"
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:28
quot;
> here [0].
>
>
> [0]:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-June/040719.html
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/1/19 9:55 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> >
You're very much welcome. I'm glad I've helped. You remind me a lot of
myself as a new player. :) Good luck in your future endeavors, and
never be afraid to ask for help if you need it.
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:36 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> I pay 5 coins to Aris for all of the help that e h
c forum here [0].
>
> [0]:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-July/040745.html
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/1/19 10:48 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > NttPF.
> >
> > On the merits, accepted, with my sincere apologies. I could patch
obb wrote:
>
> The link I pasted was (my attempt at) sending it to the public forum. Is
> replying and setting the to address to agora-business not enough?
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/1/19 10:55 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Roger on the proposal, and again, I'm sorry. It's
lly CoE an
> omission, only finger point an untimely one.
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:00 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > *OH.* Whoops. Yeah, it's good. For some reason (maybe because the
> > number was the same? my error i
with a non-numeric adoption
> index, and this might be the one opportunity (although there might be
> precedent that I don't know about).
>
> I wasn't aware of the history, though (and I see that G. already got a
> win from ribbons), so I change my vote to AGAINST.
>
&g
What would people feel about bringing that requirement back? I’d make it a
Class 1 crime, not committable more than once in a week, and with
exceptions for emails sent primarily in an official or judicial capacity.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 10:07 PM Rebecca wrote:
> People should, as used to
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:40 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I vote as follows. I act on behalf of Telnaior to vote as follows.
>
>
> > IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> >
> ---
> > 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfe
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:57 AM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > > > 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out
> > > AGAINST. The fix above (8200) does a better job at the fix.
> > >
> &g
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:08 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:57 AM Aris Merchant
>> wrote:
>> > > > 8201 Aris 3.0
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:55 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:08 AM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > As it is, we
> > have defaults that are either often broken (1.0 AI) or terribly bad
> > practice and as likely as not to annoy everyone (empty title). Mak
o adopt a proposal is resolved, if
> > >the outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted,
> > >and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is
> > >set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and
this didn't go to the PF and didn't see an informal
> response/revision (sorry if I missed it).
>
> CoE: the Proposal Pool is not empty, it contains the proposal noted
> below.
>
> On 7/1/2019 10:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Accepted, revision: The AI of proposal 8197 is none, but the AI of the
> > decision on whether to adopt that proposal is 1.0.
> >
> > -Aris
>
>
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 3:36 PM omd wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:52 AM James Cook wrote:
> > Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto).
>
> Why that rule? It's only a few months old; there are a lot of other
> rules that are much more stale.
It’s never been used, and IMO it’s more annoying tha
On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 2:02 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 07:02, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > You're right. I was waiting for the dust to settle before trying to
> > sort things out. Does the following look correct?
> >
> > Also, feel
I’d prefer to add them all back to the pool as a batch (it feels cleaner).
So R. Lee, if you still want to do this by proposal, I’d prefer it if you’d
retract the new one and just let me reinsert the old.
-Aris
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 7:00 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> R Lee- I think you could accompl
We do trust you, and it would be great to keep Agoran stuff consolidated.
We don’t worry much about adding people as members to the org. In fact, I
just invited you. :)
-Aris
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:32 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Clarification: I would need at least collaborator status on the Ass
The acting on behalf rule is intended to generally specify that an
announcement on behalf of someone is treated like an announcement by that
person. Do you know of some reason that might not work?
-Aris
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 5:28 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I just noticed that, according to
You cannot make a post on behalf of a zombie to a public forum; it is
explicitly forbidden my the acting on behalf rule.
-Aris
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 5:56 PM Rebecca wrote:
> by precedent you can do anything like that on behalf of a zombie including
> just making a post to a public forum
>
> O
I strongly suspect that R. Lee is intending to veto part of this
proposal, thereby creating mayhem. I apologize to em if this is not in
fact the case.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:49 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> I create and pend the following proposal
>
> Title: SMH @ Herald
> AI: 1
> Text: 1. Halve
t;
> On 7/12/19 9:45 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > We do trust you, and it would be great to keep Agoran stuff consolidated.
> > We don’t worry much about adding people as members to the org. In fact, I
> > just invited you. :)
> >
> > -Aris
>
With all of the proposals that are in the pool at the moment, errors
seem likely. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated.
-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
They are not. Nothing in the SLR or FLR is self-ratifying. Customarily, we
ratify the SLR from time to time by proposal in order to ensure we
accurately understand the ruleset. This is done by explicit proposal so
that people have an opportunity to check it and prevent scams. However, the
FLR is ne
And now you see why we never ratify the FLR.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 2:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Okay. I was going to try something nefarious with this, but I guess I can't
> then. On Rule 2517, the annotations list the rule as being enacted, and
> then repealed, without being re-enacted,
Just a heads up to everyone: I’m traveling at the moment, so the report
will be delayed. I was hoping to finish it up quickly today, but I had less
time than I thought I would and people keep creating tons of uproposals.
So, I’ll try to get it out as soon as I can, but that may take a bit.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 2:21 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 7/14/2019 7:56 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > I'm just curious on whether or not my reading of the Rules is correct
> here.
> > If I was to submit a proposal and specify the AI as something that needs
> to
> > be evaluated, say "the power of [s
It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by the
same person as completely fungible.
-Aris
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:45 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 18:21 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I pay a fee of one coin to de
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:05 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 22:58 -0400, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by
> > the same person as completely fungible.
>
&g
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:08 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:05 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
> ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 22:58 -0400, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:33 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jul 18, 2019, at 8:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >> 8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2
> > AGAINST. Very much not keen on timeline control given the
> > sensitivity of our game to time (one of the ways to
Personally, I’d just make them all lower case (apart from the “Agoran”) and
have done with it. My reasoning is that people can be consistent about
using lower case, but I doubt we could get them to consistently use upper
case.
-Aris
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 10:55 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> A clea
I’m strongly considering objecting, as I’d prefer to go the other way. What
do others think?
-Aris
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 9:54 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I intend, without Objection, to clean Rule 105 by replacing all
> instances of the string "reenact" with the string "re-enact".
>
> Jason Cobb
>
I like the system too. I think it might be more fun if we made it very
slightly more game relevant. I had an idea for that a little while
ago:
Once every X period, the Shogun can issue a memorandum, stipulating
recommendations for the good of the good of the game (e SHOULD not use
this for eir per
I'd be opposed to that. People might start bribing others for Karma,
which defeats the purpose of the system.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 4:37 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> Very much worth keeping imo, but maybe it should have consequences like a
> win at some point - once a year maybe?
>
> On Mon, Ju
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:04 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 7/21/2019 1:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 8:59 AM James Cook
> wrote:
> >>
> >> CoE: The Proposal Pool is not empty. I think it still contains my
> >> "Police
801 - 900 of 2209 matches
Mail list logo
