There should likely at least be a reference to
recordkeepor information.
If this gets included, could your proposal clearly resolve CFJ 3740 in
the new Ruleset, please?
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 12:26 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 21:20 -0700, omd wrote:
Proposal
ly doesn't help in this proposal.
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 12:26 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 21:20 -0700, omd wrote:
Proposal: Deregulation (AI=3)
Repeal Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions").
Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
e-defined", arguably contracts are part of the
game, and contracts can define actions, and thus actions defined by
contracts are "game-defined".
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 12:43 AM, omd wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:33 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
This leaves it undefined what a game-d
Thanks! Responses inline.
Jason Cobb
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:03 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be
sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include
conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs
I think it's okay, given that that clause has an explicit "To the extent
specified by the Rules".
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 1:00 AM, omd wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in
;distributing a proposal".
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 1:50 AM, omd wrote:
Proto: Deregulation, but less so
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An action is regulated if it:
(a) consists of altering Rules-defined state (e.g. the act of
flipping a Cit
Looking at this again, if the Rules state that doing something is a
crime (such as lying in a public message), then that arguably alters the
Rules-defined "state" of whether or not they are guilty of a crime. Is
this a valid reading, and is this intended?
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 1:
Clarification: performing the action arguably alters the Rules-defined
"state"...
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 12:58 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Looking at this again, if the Rules state that doing something is a
crime (such as lying in a public message), then that arguably alters
the Rul
Sorry! Will do.
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 9:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Note from the Office of the Promotor:
Please don't use the > style quote formatting again. It makes text
formatting a nightmare, and stops me from wrapping lines.
-Aris
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM Jason Cobb wr
Quorum might be wrong, given this CoE on the Assessor report by G (in a
reply to the thread):
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"?
Jason C
7.333..., which goes to 8.
Am I making a wrong assumption about 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
ule (Rule 1586):
If multiple rules attempt to define an entity with the same name,
then they refer to the same entity. A rule-defined entity's name
CANNOT be changed to be the same as another rule-defined entity's
name.
This seems to give credence to the interpr
Ah sorry. I promise that I can read!
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 10:20 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
No, you're getting the formula wrong. Rule 879 says that "If no other
rule defines the quorum of an Agoran Decision, the quorum for that
decision is equal to 2/3 of the number of voters on
I don't think the Rules define the position of "Cartographor"...
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 10:39 PM, Rebecca wrote:
It is my current position under the Rules as they stand that the entities
as they existed in the previous spaceship rules are not continuous.
Therefore, there are no
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 wrote:
For the adoption of Proposal 8182, I earn (8-1)*3=21 Coins
For the adoption of Proposal 8186 I earn (9-0)*3=27 Coins
For the
Oh yeah, I did something stupid and counted from the top of the chart in
the Forbes 500 rather than from the bottom.
Jason Cobb
On 6/23/19 2:02 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Jason Cobb wrote:
I note that the Ritual has been performed for 5 continuous weeks.
The
At the time that I will complete the action? That's a ridiculous
requirement...
Jason Cobb
On 6/23/19 2:33 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/22/2019 11:02 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Jason Cobb wrote:
I note that the Ritual has been performed for 5 continuous
Also, did anybody perform the ritual last week? If not, then this gets fun.
Jason Cobb
On 6/23/19 11:41 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
At the time that I will complete the action? That's a ridiculous
requirement...
Jason Cobb
On 6/23/19 2:33 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/22/2019 11:02 PM, James
Sorry, you're right, UTC is a thing. It's done now anyway.
Jason Cobb
On 6/23/19 12:03 PM, James Cook wrote:
It was performed twice in the week of 2019-06-10..16. There are still
almost 8 hours left for 2019-06-17..23.
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 15:58, Jason Cobb wrote:
Also, d
Yeah, I wasn't submitting it. I meant to send that to the discussion
forum, then forgot to change the to address.
Jason Cobb
On 6/23/19 1:23 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I’m not seeing anything to indicate that you’re submitting that as a
proposal; if you want to, make sure you say so.
-Ari
Does that Rule necessarily imply that an Instrument with power equal to
or above 3.0 CAN cause those changes? If no entity could perform those
changes, that Rule would still be accurate.
Jason Cobb
On 6/23/19 3:30 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Yes. AI 3.0 proposals are functionally omnipotent
I vote as follows:
IDAuthor(s) AITitle
---
8188 G. 3.0 Blanket Denial
FOR
8189 Jason Cobb 1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
FOR
8190 G., D Margaux
If your theory of adoption index being 0 is correct, then the attempt to
create the Rule is INEFFECTIVE because of Rule 2140 ("Power Controls
Mutability").
Jason Cobb
On 6/23/19 6:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/23/2019 3:10 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
What happens i
You could just state that
> "none" is not a valid value for the adoption index of proposals.
Jason Cobb
On 6/23/19 6:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Does this do the trick -
Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing:
Adoption index is an untracked switch
at result in the entity proscribing actions that
are not regulated by it are invalid.
An action is game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of
some binding entity.
Retitle Rule 2125 to "Binding Entities".
Set the power of Rule 2125 to 3.1.
}
Jason Cobb
On
Thanks! Responses inline again.
Jason Cobb
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions, except
that the performance of them must include at least clearly and
unambiguously announcing the performance of
fore and 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
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote
ou CAN
or CANNOT do something that the Rules say that you CAN or CANNOT do.
Jason Cobb
On 6/24/19 11:58 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
In large part, it’s the whole thing together. It feels like a complex set
of changes across multiple rules. The fact that such a change is necessary
suggests that the entire a
It happens :). We at least get some interesting precedent out of it. And
you might have stopped G. and ais523 from doing crazy stuff.
Jason Cobb
On 6/25/19 1:23 AM, James Cook wrote:
CFJ: "There exists a proposal with the title 'It's caused enough
trouble already' and w
therwise, the pledge operates
for 60 days. It is IMPOSSIBLE to commit the crime of Oathbreaking
multiple times for a single pledge; breaking a single pledge
multiple times constitutes a single crime.
}
I'll withdraw the old one and submit this soon.
Jason Cobb
On 6/25/19 2:19 AM, Jame
So, what about the ones where you both supported and objected (like
X=2.1)? Are you both a Supporter and Objector, because I don't see
anything in the dependent action rules that says you can't do both?
Jason Cobb
On 6/25/19 11:49 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
For each number X that is a
If this is going to be a problem, I could just write a quick script to
write out all of the intents for me...
Jason Cobb
On 6/25/19 2:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Oh sure why not.
I CFJ: Jason Cobb made an announcement of intent to banish the Ritual
with 2.1 Agoran Consent that meets the
as described by the entity, and only using the methods explicitly
specified in the entity for performing the given action.
Interpretations that result in the entity directly proscribing
actions that are not regulated by it are invalid.
Retitle Rule 2125 to "Binding Entities".
Set the powe
etter here)
This has the side effect of ensuring that a contract cannot define the
natural language action of "breathing", it can only create a new action,
even if that action is "to breathe".
As for the second sentence, that might have become dead code in the
shrinkage, I
be construed as stating that it could require/forbid for _anyone_. I
think this different from "purports to" because if a binding entity has
the text "A party to the contract SHALL NOT breathe.", then the binding
entity states it forbids breathing.
Jason Cobb
On 6/28/19
I think there was a proto, not sure if it was ever submitted.
Jason Cobb
On 6/29/19 10:32 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
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:
Don't worry, in ~3 days, we have a chance with my intent, since it will
require 2.3 Agoran Consent and G. will have not objected then.
Jason Cobb
On 6/30/19 4:42 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Aww. *blows party popper mournfully*
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, June 30,
Is there a reason why the Ribbons wording is written in terms of being a
person switch with values of all possible subsets instead of being
written as assets?
--
Jason Cobb
I created both because I thought that there might be some difference
between the rules for proposals and Agoran Decisions. Apparently not,
though :P.
Jason Cobb
On 6/30/19 8:47 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
Both 3744 and 3745 judged TRUE. Not sure what is the difference between them.
The question
I just checked and we can't actually make Agora the ADoP because of Rule
955 (how sad). But there's still no reason for it to be a valid vote in
the first place, so I will leave my fix proposal standing.
Jason Cobb
On 6/30/19 10:08 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I note that the voting meth
seems like a reading that has
*some* textual basis.
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19 12:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Actually, they are different.
The Proposal Distribution (not the Proposal) was CoE'd on the AI (the
Distribution listed the AI as 0.5, which is wrong regardless). Since
AI is
an essent
do end up filing a Motion to Reconsider, I'll support.
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19 1:47 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
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 opi
27;t judge anyway, so
no difference to the gamestate than if it failed.
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19 11:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/30/2019 11:32 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
If a player does all that and also specifies that AI=e, I don't see
why that makes the CAN clause fail.
It's im
earlier - in this case, at the time the proposal
is created.
I agree that dealing with announcements with invalid parameters should
be fixed more broadly - but I thought that I could fix it in this
specific instance since I was touching this area of the Rules anyway.
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19 2:32
interesting
effects on R106.
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19 3:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The current standing judgements AFAICT are "ain't broke - don't fix".
This relies on assuming "no AI" == "AI='none'" but two judges have
agreed with that reading.
On
Are you strongly against 8196 (I know that it adds text)? Is there
something materially wrong with it that I should fix later?
Also, you could make Tarhalindur vote FOR the ones that you can't due to
your pledge (I think, depending on the wording of the pledge).
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19
Claim of error: I submitted the proposal "Regulated actions reform (v2)"
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, init
It's fine. It's not urgent in light of the judgment on CFJ 3737, so it
can just wait. Also, it was submitted to the public 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 Merc
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 your CoE that's NttPF.
-Aris
On M
That all looks fine, thanks for resolving it quickly.
Side note, I see in your quote introduction that it says "Falsifian". I am
not Falsifian, I go by Jason Cobb (although I really don't care if that's
shortened or anything). I just don't want any confusion :).
On T
might get split between
REMAND and REMIT and end up giving it to AFFIRM (or LOGJAMMED), although
I'm not sure how much of a concern that really is (I just hate first
past the post for more than 2 options).
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 12:21 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:
Forwarded Message -
Just to be stylistically consistent, which one should I prefer? The
Rules use both, although "Class N" is more common than "Class-N".
--
Jason Cobb
I'd just like to apologize to omd, who managed to get all 3 of my
Oathbreaking CFJs...
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[Quick! While it's still current!]
Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
-
But what if I think strings are just /better/ than numbers?
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 9:09 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Gratuitious: the caller emself admits that N is obviously intended to mean
a number. One meaning of N in this specialised context is to stand in for
a number. This isn't even a p
Dang it; you are absolutely right, and I didn't consider that.
Note to judge omd: this applies just as well to CFJ 3743.
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 10:45 PM, James Cook wrote:
Gratuitous argument:
As far as I know, finger-pointing still isn't fixed. CFJ 3736
determined that the Referee C
I got the first one, if that helps in any way.
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 11:33 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 20:32:12 -0700
From: Edward Murphy
To: Jason Cobb
Jason Cobb wrote:
I'm not
Oh, sorry, didn't realize the first wasn't to the discussion forum.
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 11:34 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I got the first one, if that helps in any way.
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 11:33 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re:
t being in Rule 2479
("Official Justice"), but that rule then immediately proceeds to use
"Judgement" (with e) twice.
I don't really care which one is picked, I'd rather just have consistency.
--
Jason Cobb
ms (2) - (8) to be items (1) - (7) in the new list.
}
The Rule 2541 ("Executive Orders") is at the same power as Rule 2531,
but Rule 2541 explicitly claims precedence, so Rule 2531 doesn't apply,
but this feels kind of fragile and tenuous. This proto would fix that.
--
Jason Cobb
I'm using the Thunderbird spellchecker, and it yells at me for
"Judgement"...
Jason Cobb
On 7/3/19 12:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 7/3/2019 8:50 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Again, as a matter of style, should we prefer "Judgement" or
"Judgment"? My > spel
But that not withstanding, I support using the same format in CFJ
archives, and I think it's a good idea to have consistency between the
CFJ archives and the Rules, so I'll just use "Judgement" from now on.
Jason Cobb
On 7/3/19 12:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I
Interesting. It most likely delegates to some sort of OS setting.
Anyway, I just manually added it to my system.
Jason Cobb
On 7/3/19 12:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 7/3/2019 9:38 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I'm using the Thunderbird spellchecker, and it yells at me for
"Judgement&q
ot;out of its time window" (and how
> that
> relates to the term "operates" in the CFJ statement) is a matter of
> semantics that is IRRELEVANT.
>
> On 7/5/2019 10:42 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > I CFJ: "R. Lee's Oath to vote against certain proposals ope
I'll do that, but I'm not at a laptop right now, so it'll be a few hours.
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 7:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 7/5/2019 3:14 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > Hmm... maybe the statement should have been "The time window of [the
> > pledge] is 6
Heh. Yeah, I've been keeping track of this. I've come close a few times
now. It's of course not my goal to stress this system (though I'm not
sure how much one person actually could with the excess case rule).
Jason Cobb
On 7/5/19 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I don't
Does anyone else agree that a "by announcement" is needed here? If so,
someone might want to get a proposal submitted by the next distribution.
Jason Cobb
On 7/3/19 12:38 AM, omd wrote:
Does Proposal 8181 actually fix it? Rule 2557 still needs a "by announcement".
In a
This may be a bit nit-picky, but I don't believe "withdraw" is defined
for rules, only "repeal".
Jason Cobb
On 7/6/19 10:52 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 14:38, James Cook wrote:
I submit a proposal as follows.
Title: Police Power
Actually, to get R.
s://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-June/040667.html
CoE 1:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-June/040655.html
PROPOSAL 8180 (Paying our Assessor)
FOR: R. Lee#, D. Margaux, L, Aris, Owen, Falsifian, Jason Cobb, Walk
I had no idea that Agora was so indecisive :). I honestly think I would
prefer the last one - but it sounds like it might make the Assessor's
life not super fun.
Jason Cobb
On 7/7/19 3:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 7/7/2019 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
It's actually "evaluat
Are you looking at Rule 2350 ("Proposals"), which is the only place I
see that wording ("remove (syn. retract, withdraw)")? I was looking at
Rule 105 ("Rule Changes"), which does not define "withdraw".
Jason Cobb
On 7/7/19 5:05 PM, James Cook wro
I'm personally fine with it, and it makes it slightly more searchable to
have it all in email.
Jason Cobb
On 7/8/19 11:44 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 7/7/2019 5:19 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Ah, another week, another 5 CFJs
srsly, what do people think is the amount of court email traff
You're right. I didn't know that was a rule, sorry.
Jason Cobb
On 7/8/19 9:06 PM, James Cook wrote:
I think those failed because e was the master of a zombie. [0]
[0]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-July/054699.html
On Tue, 9 Jul 201
Is there a reason that this Rule says that the Herald has to do it? The
paydays rule (Rule 2559) just says that "at the beginning of each month,
a Payday occurs.", and the Treasuror is just expected to keep track of
it. Is there something preventing the Karma rule from doing this?
;s karma moving farther away from 0.
I'm slightly worried about item 1. It effectively says that "For a
Notice of Honour to be valid, it must: [...] be valid [...]". Does this
run afoul of determinacy, thus possibly making it impossible for a
Notice of Honour to be valid?
--
Jason Cobb
I recognize that that is obviously the intent. I'm not familiar with all
of the rules around determinacy, so I can't say with certainty whether
that that is actually what happens, though.
Jason Cobb
On 7/8/19 10:13 PM, Rebecca wrote:
surely it just means that the player has pu
And this is how we all die.
Jason Cobb
On 7/9/19 5:38 PM, Rebecca wrote:
aw yeah
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 7:27 AM Dice Server -bl69cv-
wrote:
This is an automatic message.
This message was generated by
ke...@uw.edu
through the "hamete virtual dice server"
I'm really sorry that that went to official, forgot to change the to:
address.
Jason Cobb
On 7/10/19 9:48 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
For the adoption of Proposal 8182, I earn (10-1)*3.0 = 27 coins.
For the adoption of Proposal 8186, I earn (11-0)*3.0 = 33 coins.
For the adoption of Proposal
The promotor can put the old one back up for a vote again (once), since
the outcome was FAILED QUORUM.
Jason Cobb
On 7/10/19 5:30 PM, Rebecca wrote:
I create and pend (again) the following proposal
Title: Spaceships
AI: 1
Text: Create a spaceship in the possession of each player
Ah, sorry about that, I probably should have stated that.
Jason Cobb
On 7/10/19 6:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Yeah the reason is Transparent. As for it being act-on-behalf, I wrote
it in a bit of a hurry and that's just what I thought of
Ah, my bad.
Gratuitous (or amending the arguments, whatever):
G. has pointed out that I'm wrong about the final paragraph of my
original arguments, so please disregard that paragraph.
Jason Cobb
On 7/11/19 9:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 7/10/2019 5:11 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I do
Well, we have some test cases right now, so someone could CFJ (if nobody
else does, I will later).
Jason Cobb
On 7/11/19 10:18 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 00:56, Rebecca wrote:
Does the CHoJ work now btw?
It's unclear, since R2557 may not give a method for levying
of Oathbreaking, or would another finger point be needed?
Jason Cobb
On 7/12/19 2:06 AM, omd wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 5:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
Excerpt from Rule 2450 ("Pledges"):
If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform
(or refra
#x27;s
fine (I honestly wouldn't if I was one of you all), and I'll just
continue developing where it is now.
On a semi-related note, if anybody cares about the code, here it is:
[0]: https://github.com/random-internet-cat/agora-assessor
--
Jason Cobb
Clarification: I would need at least collaborator status on the Assessor
repo (which I assume is what Falsifian has on the Registrar/Treasuror
repos), not member access to the entire org.
Jason Cobb
On 7/12/19 9:29 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I see that there is a GitHub organization for Agora. As
I see. Thank you! :)
Jason Cobb
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
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:32 PM Jason Cobb
I don't believe there are any current decisions.
Jason Cobb
On 7/13/19 3:34 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
If doing so causes me to become Jacob Arduino's master, which it should do
unless this is still broken for reasons I don't comprehend, I transfer 87 coins
to Agora.
I a
aling other people's zombies, since an
inactive person won't object to it? If a master can cause a zombie to
object to an intent, then disregard this (I'm not quite sure).
Jason Cobb
On 7/13/19 5:02 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I propose the following:
Title: AFK Reform Act
AI: 2
Au
I'm sorry, but how exactly could mayhem be created by (slightly) messing
up Karma?
Jason Cobb
On 7/13/19 9:31 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
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.
Just added that (also realized that I need to allow players voting on
only some proposals, that's fixed, too).
Jason Cobb
On 7/13/19 9:51 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
You're welcome!
Incidentally, could you add a feature that states the number of voters
on each decision? It would be he
Falisifian is the author of 8202 ("Police Power"), although e has listed
me as a co-author.
Jason Cobb
On 7/13/19 11:15 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
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
--
have
money), since Agora would not have objected to this intent - this
defeats the point of zombie auctions.
Jason Cobb
On 7/14/19 6:23 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
I withdraw my AFK proposal and propose this in its place:
Title: AFK Reform Act v1.1
AI: 2
Author: d Margaux
Coauthors: G., Jason Co
Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a
friend.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley wrote:
> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
>
> These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/
>
> Date of last official ruleset of this type: 16 Jun 2019
> Date of
part of any ruleset is self-ratifying.
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 11:57 Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a
> > friend.
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Sta
Hm... my reading would be that the default is "null". And I'm not sure
what happens if you increase "null' by 1.
Jason Cobb
On 7/14/19 8:42 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 22:04, nch wrote:
It's also not clear what the default of the
armour val
Whoops, you're right. I suppose I haven't read the entire ruleset yet :).
Jason Cobb
On 7/14/19 8:56 PM, James Cook wrote:
Hm... my reading would be that the default is "null". And I'm not sure
what happens if you increase "null' by 1.
Jason Cobb
I think
hat's
the case, could I say the AI is "the power of [some Rule] at the time of
resolution", and have that work?
--
Jason Cobb
I assume everybody on the GitHub org got a message about me adding a key
to Assessor - that's me trying to set up CI for the Assessor repo.
Jason Cobb
On 7/12/19 9:29 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I see that there is a GitHub organization for Agora. As of right now,
I've placed my assessor
Whoops, this should have gone to the actual distribution.
Jason Cobb
On 7/15/19 8:26 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
CoE: Falsifian is the author of 8202 ("Police Power"), although e has
listed me as a co-author.
I am now using machine parsing on the full-text section of
distributions. It would be much appreciated if the formatting in this
section remains fairly consistent :).
Jason Cobb
On 7/15/19 7:32 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision
Ooh! Then I favour this CFJ!
Jason Cobb
On 7/15/19 10:36 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 02:29, Rebecca wrote:
CFJ: Rule 2157 exists.
It's 2517.
101 - 200 of 1186 matches
Mail list logo
