DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)

Trigon wrote: By the way, I found the Kingmaking thread which pushed me over 1000 coins. Thanks, I guess, but I'm really not sure why it was done. I can't find much commentary about it in the Reportor's summaries or the mailing lists themselves. Oh, because I was expecting coins to be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)

On 4/26/2020 8:26 AM, ais523 wrote: > On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 22:30 -0400, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 16:55, ais523 wrote: >>> Experience from BlogNomic is that many players apparently value >>> causing a win to happen, even if it's some other player that >>> actually gets the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)

On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 22:30 -0400, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 16:55, ais523 via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > Experience from BlogNomic is that many players apparently value > > causing a win to happen, even if it's some

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)

On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 16:55, ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 14:53 -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-business > wrote: > > The following is a Notice of Honour: > > > > +1 PSS for reporting for Treasuror. > > -1 twg for leaving without

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)

On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 14:53 -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote: > The following is a Notice of Honour: > > +1 PSS for reporting for Treasuror. > -1 twg for leaving without resigning (I guess). > > By the way, I found the Kingmaking thread which pushed me over 1000 > coins. Thanks, I

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

So it is, thank you - I marked all the zombie auction stuff as "uncertain, revisit later" and never did. Revision forthcoming. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, February 14, 2020 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > Also missing my transfer from o: >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

Jason wrote: > CoE: this leaves out he Payday coins. Sorry. I even remembered it, just confused it with the broken things. Roll on Friday morning. -twg

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

G. wrote: > CoE on coin balances: missing blackjack payments? Oh yes. Somehow it didn't register with me that those were actual game actions. :P Revision forthcoming. -twg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

On 1/11/2020 8:08 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: Speaking of which, did the proposal that authorized D. Margaux's victory actually do that? The rules at the moment don't seem to allow victory by proposal, nor are victories self-ratifying any more. FWIW we did ratify the Scroll a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 21:30, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:26 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > > > On 1/11/2020 10:53 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb wrote: >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:26 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 1/11/2020 10:53 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb wrote: > > > >> I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but > >> since they're pretty useless, that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 14:26, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 1/11/2020 10:53 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb wrote: > > > >> I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but > >> since

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

On 1/11/2020 10:53 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb wrote: > >> I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but >> since they're pretty useless, that would be pointless. I perform the >> following action 18 times: { If I have more than

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but > since they're pretty useless, that would be pointless. I perform the > following action 18 times: { If I have more than

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 at 23:39, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:25 PM, James Cook > wrote: > > 10Jacob Arduino > > CoE: Jacob Arduino has no coins because e is no longer a player. Thanks. I'll publish a revision soon. > I intend without objection to declare

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 04:40, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 8/26/19 10:38 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > >Forbes 500 > > > > > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

On behalf of tar I transfer 20 coins to R. Lee On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 2:24 PM James Cook wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 23:35, Rebecca wrote: > > I also transfer tar's 20 coins to myself > > Does this work? > > R2466 requires that you "must, in the message in which the action is > performed,

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 23:35, Rebecca wrote: > I also transfer tar's 20 coins to myself Does this work? R2466 requires that you "must, in the message in which the action is performed, uniquely identify the principal and that the action is being taken on behalf of that person." Specifically, you

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 20:48, Rance Bedwell wrote: > If you want me to, I will attempt to withdraw the COE. That might make things more interesting, since I don't see a way for you to do it. I might still be able to deny it under Rule 2201; I'm not sure. I don't think it's causing much harm. I'm

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

You have persuaded me at least.  Also, in this case I chose to send the second email.  But if the duplicate email resulted from a technical glitch with no conscious decision involved, it certainly wouldn't seem right or a common sense interpretation to penalize the person.   In addition to the

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

On 3/5/2019 6:14 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: 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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

Oh don't worry about me, it's the only vaguely controversial thing that's happened so far this week so it's pretty easy to keep track of in my head. If it was actually too confusing I'd be docking karma from you myself. :P -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:06

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

Seems like the solution here is to define (in a rule) “by announcement, stating…” as requiring the “stating” bit to be part of the public message. Gaelan > On Mar 5, 2019, at 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > CFJ, barring twg: G. has earned 5 coins for the Herald's Report of > 17-Feb-2019. >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

> On Mar 5, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Yes, I don't see how this is any different from "stating it to yourself". > Your publication of the hash (if it even is a hash - I see no evidence that > it's not just a random string of hexadecimal digits) didn't meaningfully >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

In that message, you didn’t state a number of coins; you stated a hash. Stating a hash is different from stating that-which-was-hashed, I think, at least when the hash cannot readily be decrypted by those to whom the statement is directed. If you said the hash out loud to yourself, or

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

I was starting to be concerned tbh lol. On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:32 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 2/18/2019 12:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada > dada > > dada... > > (that dada thing was meant to be silly, not angry - i

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

Kinky. On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:33 PM D. Margaux wrote: > I point my toes at G. and cuddle beam for Faking. > > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > > > maah uyntz asee as myself and sunt Dictatorship, also, the game is now > > Ossified and nobody can perform any game

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

> On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that it >> works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID. >> >> For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision to >> the below-referenced report. Here's a a more

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

No, I disagree. The point is that quang was a definition in the Agoran dialect, the same as if the relevant verb had been defined in standard English (we’ve never made a specific ruling on linguistic acceptability, beyond the comprehension of the players). Here, you’re just saying something and

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

Oh ok, will fix ~Corona On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > CoE: Still off I'm afraid. Zombies should get the May salary (that > includes > 3 Incs) but not the initial 5. (then some people transferred the Incs from > their zombies to themselves

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

On Fri, 4 May 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > CoE: This report misses that 3 incense were added to Paydays before the May 1 > payday (Proposal 8040). (also, 天火狐 was a zombie when that proposal passed so shouldn't have gotten the 5).