Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-26 Thread ATMunn
I retract the proposal "Way More Controversial Version of the Above" for real this time. On 10/26/2017 8:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: NttPF. -Aris On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, ATMunn wrote: Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-26 Thread Aris Merchant
It is certainly a restricted action. It modifies information I'm required to recordkeep, and it is enabled by the rules. -Aris On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:06 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > Retraction of Proposals is not informal! > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Publius Scribonius

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-26 Thread Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Thank you, I have checked the ruleset and you are correct. I thought that it was not required to be by announcement, but I was incorrect. On 10/26/2017 09:06 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > Retraction of Proposals is not informal! > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-26 Thread VJ Rada
Retraction of Proposals is not informal! On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > But retraction is itself informal. > > > On 10/26/2017 08:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: >> NttPF. >> >> -Aris >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-26 Thread Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
But retraction is itself informal. On 10/26/2017 08:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > NttPF. > > -Aris > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, ATMunn wrote: >> Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously >> nobody will vote for it. >> >> >> On

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-26 Thread Aris Merchant
NttPF. -Aris On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, ATMunn wrote: > Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously > nobody will vote for it. > > > On 10/25/2017 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> >> Needs to be AI-3 to work. >> >> On Wed, 25 Oct

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-26 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 13:13 +1100, VJ Rada wrote: > > Actually, I wonder whether or not we should just repeal the Public Forum > > rule? Because there are so many references to Public Fora in the rules, as > > well as Agora is a Nomic being a rule, it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-25 Thread Alex Smith
On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 13:13 +1100, VJ Rada wrote: > Actually, I wonder whether or not we should just repeal the Public Forum > rule? Because there are so many references to Public Fora in the rules, as > well as Agora is a Nomic being a rule, it feels like the existence of the > current Public

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-25 Thread VJ Rada
Repealing the rule would probably leave us with a common-law definition of fora that is something like "A place that all Agorans have access to and is regularly used and understood by Agorans as a place game actions are sent to". Discussion fora are not so understood. Changing fora would simply

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-25 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > Actually, I wonder whether or not we should just repeal the Public Forum > rule? > Because there are so many references to Public Fora in the rules, as well as > Agora is a Nomic being a rule, it feels like the existence of the current > Public Fora as

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-25 Thread VJ Rada
Actually, I wonder whether or not we should just repeal the Public Forum rule? Because there are so many references to Public Fora in the rules, as well as Agora is a Nomic being a rule, it feels like the existence of the current Public Fora as Fora would still be implied. And having the whole

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-25 Thread VJ Rada
Yeah, if we had a significant amount of time and quorum for agoran consent, there would be no point in having it. It does feel odd that you would have to bribe less people to give you a title of your choice if you did it "non-traditionally", though. I mean, it's quite possible without doing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-25 Thread Kerim Aydin
Deregistering the players wouldn't destroy Agora. As long as the public forum exists (now *that's* worth protecting), a person CAN still register when there's no players. This would allow the Assessor to resolve the proposal and register and be the only player in the game for the duration

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-25 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote: > Isn't it? They seem to be the same in terms of the proportion of people you > need to get on side, it's hard to see how they aren't intended to be similar. > It seems kind of strange that it's easier to award a patent title by making an > AI1.5 proposal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-25 Thread VJ Rada
Actually, I agree with you. It probably should be 1.5 Agoran Consent. Or 1.4 Consent. On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Madeline wrote: > Isn't it? They seem to be the same in terms of the proportion of people > you need to get on side, it's hard to see how they aren't

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-25 Thread Madeline
Is this intended to influence the destroying-the-universe CFJ? This is literally exactly the thing the arguments there were talking about. On 2017-10-26 12:45, ATMunn wrote: For fun, I create the below proposal: Title: Way More Controversial Version of the Above Author: ATMunn Co-Author(s):

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-25 Thread Alexis Hunt
I was tempted. On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 at 21:53 ATMunn wrote: > Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously > nobody will vote for it. > > On 10/25/2017 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > Needs to be AI-3 to work. > > > > On Wed, 25 Oct

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-25 Thread ATMunn
Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously nobody will vote for it. On 10/25/2017 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Needs to be AI-3 to work. On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote: For fun, I create the below proposal: Title: Way More Controversial Version of the Above

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-25 Thread Kerim Aydin
Needs to be AI-3 to work. On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote: > For fun, I create the below proposal: > > Title: Way More Controversial Version of the Above > Author: ATMunn > Co-Author(s): Telnaior, V.J. Rada > > Deregister all currently registered players. >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-25 Thread Alexis Hunt
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 at 21:40 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > 2. Flipping Officeholder switches isn't secured anywhere > That's a good catch, worth fixing. > Is it? It's still regulated.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

2017-10-25 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Telnaior wrote: > I create the following proposal and use an Action Point to flip its Imminence > switch to pending: I will vote against this because I have a better way to hide these bodies... heh heh... > 1. Rule 649 "Patent Titles" requests stronger consent for