It was a very fun 27 minutes though
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 5:30 PM Lucidiot via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 19/11/2020 17:03, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> >
> > Wait, wait! We can go full circle!
> >
> > This is a Notice of Honor
> >
> > +1 Falsifan (be
On 6/30/20 10:41 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/30/20 8:51 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> This is a notice of honour.
>>
>> -1 Jason for attempting to resolve the fix proposal too early, opening a
>> scam opportunity
>>
>> +1 nch for not taking advantage of that opportunity
On 6/30/20 8:51 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> This is a notice of honour.
>
> -1 Jason for attempting to resolve the fix proposal too early, opening a
> scam opportunity
>
> +1 nch for not taking advantage of that opportunity
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
This is a notice of honour.
+1 Jason
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 21:06, nch via agora-business
wrote:
>
> This is a Notice of Honour:
>
> +1 Falsifian (excellence in journalism)
>
> -1 Jason (to ensure eir ego doesn't grow too big up in the clouds above
> the rest of us)
Thanks, ATMunn and nch! I am glad you're enjoying the summaries.
-
NttPF
> On Mar 30, 2020, at 19:16, Rebecca via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:38 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> +1: Jason for putting to rest a piece of ancient history
>> -1: Aris for abusing a motion to reconsider to
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:38 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> +1: Jason for putting to rest a piece of ancient history
> -1: Aris for abusing a motion to reconsider to extend a deadline
>
> -Alexis
>
+1 Jason
-1 Aris
Reasons are the same as Alexis, ab
Falsifian wrote:
Notice of Honour:
+1 to Jason Cobb for publishing Rulekeepor reports.
-1 to Murphy for being flaky about ADoP duties. (I'm thankful to have
an ADoP, but I need to get the Karma from somewhere.)
*fist-shaking intensifies*
I do need to catch up on this account a lot more often.
yea i intentionally used both names all the time to confuse people
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:25 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Next time, just try to communicate a bit more clearly. :)
>
> Notice of Honor:
> -1 G. (unclear communication)
> +1 omd (serving as our D
I think we're just interpreting things differently: when a proposal is
"added back" to the proposal pool, you give it the priority of its original
number, while I was assuming that if other proposals were added to the
pool in the mean time, those should have priority.
In this case, it turned o
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > 2. In R2510, clause (2) and clause (3) somehow got reversed, in that the
> > "other" in clause (2) is meant to refer to the fact that it can't be the
> > same entity as in clause (3). Does the "other" m
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
2. In R2510, clause (2) and clause (3) somehow got reversed, in that the
"other" in clause (2) is meant to refer to the fact that it can't be the
same entity as in clause (3). Does the "other" mean anything with that
reversal?
Um no, it's meant to refe
Two gratuitous arguments:
1. CFJ 3657 found that the +1 and -1 are simultaneous:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039083.html
2. In R2510, clause (2) and clause (3) somehow got reversed, in that the
"other" in clause (2) is meant to refer to
CFJ 1361 ("Beverly") is quite relevant here.
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 14:02 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a
> > person who registered during April of this year.
> >
> > This ends my argume
On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 13:45 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote:
> This is CFJ 3662. I assign it to D. Margaux.
Doesn't this assignment have the same (alleged) ambiguity in it as the
event that's the subject of the CFJ?
--
ais523
On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 16:09 -0400, D Margaux wrote:
> I favor this CFJ. I suppose I am an interested party, but the general
> principle is more important than its application in this particular
> Notice of Honour.
I don't think there's a conflict of interest. Either it's valid and
your honour does
I favor this CFJ. I suppose I am an interested party, but the general
principle is more important than its application in this particular Notice
of Honour.
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 4:03 PM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> PF
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018, 14:02 Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> > I submit this noti
On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 14:02 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a
> person who registered during April of this year.
>
> This ends my arguments for a frivolous CFJ. I probably did something
> wrong.
Our precedent is basically that player
I submit this notice of honor:
-1 to D. Margaux for being a manipulator
+1 to D Margaux for helping debug zombie rules
I call a CFJ: This Notice of Honour causes a player's karma to change by
exactly one and then change back.
Arguments: In standard English, initials can be spelled with periods a
This is not to the public forum.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Reuben Staley
wrote:
> Another notice of honour: VJ loses one for the reasons discussed in this
> thread.
>
> ATMunn gains one because e is generally a really good player.
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> On Nov 27, 2017 5:33 PM, "ATMunn" wr
Another notice of honour: VJ loses one for the reasons discussed in this
thread.
ATMunn gains one because e is generally a really good player.
--
Trigon
On Nov 27, 2017 5:33 PM, "ATMunn" wrote:
> Notice of Honour:
> VJ Rada loses 1 karma for scamming, making things hard for me as
> ADo
You were the only AGAINST vote for 7959 ("Deregistration Fix") and if it
wasn't for you I'd have Transparent by now. ;_;
On 2017-11-16 09:49, VJ Rada wrote:
Oh whoops I didn't do one of these last week. This is a notice of honour. I
remove 1 karma from Quazie for not existing. I add 1 karma to
Alright, CB. Sign me up to your dating service. I'm pretty unethical.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> You can subtract from me, but not from who I am enabling to game the system
> in secret, mwahahaha!
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Telnaior wrote:
>>
>> This is a Not
You can subtract from me, but not from who I am enabling to game the system
in secret, mwahahaha!
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Telnaior wrote:
> This is a Notice of Honour.
> I subtract a Karma from Cuddle Beam for attempting to game the karma
> system.
> I give a Karma to Aris for putting i
Well... no one said the reason had to be accurate :V
On 2017-10-29 14:10, VJ Rada wrote:
Bayushi is actually a 0-karma inactive.
Bayushi is actually a 0-karma inactive.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, however, it seems that initiation was
NttPF.
On 10/25/2017 7:14 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
attn ATMunn: Here's me unilaterally initiating an election for an office I hold.
Not actually sure if o. has ever become a candidate. Attn o: Probably should do
that.
attn ATMunn: Here's me unilaterally initiating an election for an office I
hold.
Not actually sure if o. has ever become a candidate. Attn o: Probably
should do that.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> I don't think you can do that any more. IIRC you need to have 2
> support AND
I don't think you can do that any more. IIRC you need to have 2
support AND the position be interim if you aren't the ADoP, or you can
initiate an election unilaterally if you are the ADoP and the position
is interim, or if you hold the position (which I now do)
However, I'm happy to oblige. I ini
Surely so! I strongly remember resolving that batch, it was a huge one.
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Depitizing for rulekeepor entails taking the office over (unless you resign
> after of course). I think we'd all appreciate the short term work but it's
> one of the harde
Depitizing for rulekeepor entails taking the office over (unless you resign
after of course). I think we'd all appreciate the short term work but it's
one of the hardest jobs to do on an ongoing basis.
That said, was the last election ever resolved? I see VJ initiated it on
September 14 but can't
(Oh gosh. What have I gotten myself into?)
I don't understand the significance of your message. What should I wait
to do? Do you mean I shouldn't work on the ruleset?
On 10/22/2017 1:50 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
Not you specifically, primarily Trigon, but really anyone who wa
Not you specifically, primarily Trigon, but really anyone who wanted it.
On 10/22/2017 03:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> (was this meant to be just to me?) I'm not planning on doing anything
> myself to start an election or anything... I mainly didn't want Trigon
> to put work into it or think e
I understand your concerns and even share some of them. That's why I'm
only testing the waters a bit right now with the deputisation. If it
turns out to be too much work and I don't want to handle it, than
someone else should definitely take the job. That being said, I'm fairly
certain that tha
Yes, regardless of who deputizes in the short-term I think this one definitely
deserves an election.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> I agree. I'm considering putting myself up for election on it as a result.
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 15:20 Kerim Aydin, wrote:
>
>
> I should
I agree. I'm considering putting myself up for election on it as a result.
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 15:20 Kerim Aydin, wrote:
>
>
> I should say I'm a bit nervous with someone who hasn't been an Officer
> before starting with rulekeepor. It's an unholy blend of a lot of work,
> in big bursts, with
I should say I'm a bit nervous with someone who hasn't been an Officer
before starting with rulekeepor. It's an unholy blend of a lot of work,
in big bursts, with timeliness being a big issue, and it requires some
pretty finicky understanding of the rules (e.g. it's the primary person
responsi
You deputize by actually performing the action (e.g. actually publishing
an up-to-date Ruleset that's overdue). Multiple people might announce
their intent to do so ahead of time, but that doesn't make the office
change (or reserve it for them).
So you'd do it by saying "I deputize for the Rule
You can do as you intended, making the "if it is still possible" clause in
PSS' pledge false, thus alleviating eir duty to become Rulekeepor. Think of
it as "if you don't do it, they will".
天火狐
On 22 October 2017 at 10:44, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Oh. Then it's PSS' responsibility now and not min
Oh. Then it's PSS' responsibility now and not mine?
--
Trigon
On Oct 22, 2017 8:40 AM, "Alexis Hunt" wrote:
That was only an intent; you haven't actually done it yet.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 10:34 Reuben Staley wrote:
> Are people still not getting my messages? It's in a thread with the title
That was only an intent; you haven't actually done it yet.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 10:34 Reuben Staley wrote:
> Are people still not getting my messages? It's in a thread with the title
> "Deputising for the rulekeepor".
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> On Oct 22, 2017 8:31 AM, "Alexis Hunt" wrote:
>
>> Huh?
Are people still not getting my messages? It's in a thread with the title
"Deputising for the rulekeepor".
--
Trigon
On Oct 22, 2017 8:31 AM, "Alexis Hunt" wrote:
> Huh? When?
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 Reuben Staley,
> wrote:
>
>> I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized
Huh? When?
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 Reuben Staley, wrote:
> I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for rulekeepor.
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I pledge to deputize for the
I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for rulekeepor.
--
Trigon
On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
still possible.
On 10/22/2017 12:14
Mine is sort of up to date. The Registrar's report should be there, but
I need to find my SSH key password to push again.
On 10/22/2017 12:10 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've been
> a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
>
> JDGA: I'm ironical
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 9:10 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've been
> a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
Indeed, e did. I and others have volunteered to help annotate CFJs,
including working on the backlog, but it never happened. The last F
Yeah, go ahead and deputize if you want, Trigon.
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I'd be willing to do one or all of these things. I've been around for just
> under a month, so I think I know the gist of this game enough by now to have
> responsibilities.
>
> On 10/21/2017
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> The difference might be that in 3409 the standard was the ordinary "by
> announcement" wheras here the rule involved itself specifies a
> heightened standard of clarity?
point taken.
I'd be willing to do one or all of these things. I've been around for
just under a month, so I think I know the gist of this game enough by
now to have responsibilities.
On 10/21/2017 10:14 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
Rulekeepor is definite
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada wrote:
> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
>
>
> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been keeping them up
> to date.
>
> https://faculty.washington.edu/keri
The difference might be that in 3409 the standard was the ordinary "by
announcement" wheras here the rule involved itself specifies a
heightened standard of clarity?
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Just grepped the cases directory. The recent one was 3501. I remember
>
Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise for it
with appropriate notice. They could also start an election, perhaps with a
campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline wrot
I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in confusion
is really troubling...
On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've been
a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize
The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've been
a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it might be
just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week
Just grepped the cases directory. The recent one was 3501. I remember
it led to discussion, but the action in question was registration which
is a special case (you're allowed to be more unclear in registration
than for most things).
The next one back is 3409. It proposes some tests for wheth
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada wrote:
> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
>
The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been keeping them up
to date.
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the original
precedent that I'm aware
Could be a potential option for the HLR? (if officialising that is even
a good idea)
Would be really useful to have if we don't just want to officially add
(or overrule) CFJs through proposal, though. There really is a lot to
absorb as a newbie :P
As for the late reports in offices, is there muc
We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:53 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> It's established precedent actually that subject-lines don't count for
> anything unless specifically mentioned in the message (eg, I do the
> action in the subject line). I couldn'
It's established precedent actually that subject-lines don't count for
anything unless specifically mentioned in the message (eg, I do the
action in the subject line). I couldn't tell you exactly where or
which CFJs although I'm sure G or Orjan could. Problem with
cntrl-F-ing the CFJ database is th
Anyone remember which CFJ it was in (<6 months ago). I'm drawing a blank.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote:
> Is there any real reason for the subject line not to count, incidentally, or
> is it worth CFJing?
>
>
> On 2017-10-22 14:46, Telnaior wrote:
> > This is a notice of honour. (Appar
We've recently re-assessed whether subject lines have meaning,
I think a recent CFJ allowed it. The exact text of the rule is
that a Notice must
"Be clear that it is a Notice of Honour"
I believe the subject line and context are sufficiently clear
so that would be how I'd reflect it in my
Is there any real reason for the subject line not to count,
incidentally, or is it worth CFJing?
On 2017-10-22 14:46, Telnaior wrote:
This is a notice of honour. (Apparently the subject line doesn't count)
Alexis gains a Karma for being extra helpful, Gaelan loses a Karma for
being slack on r
That message isn't effective iirc. I think you have to specifically
designate it as a notice of honour.
---1 minute later---
Yeah, "For a Notice of Honour to be valid, it must:
1. Be clear that it is a Notice of Honour"
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Telnaior wrote:
> Found it :D
> Al
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:42 Telnaior wrote:
> Found it :D
> Alexis gains a Karma for being helpful, Gaelan loses a Karma for being
> slack on reporting (I think he's Rulekeepor?)
>
E is. I believe this fails, however, for not clearly specifying it is a
notice of honour?
Check out the text of proposal 7904, here:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-October/011867.html
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote:
> Thankyou :D
> Though I haven't been able to figure out what the karma actually is or where
> it comes from? If someone
It was in one of the last two proposal resolutions. Our rulekeepor has been
a bit slow as of late.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:29 Madeline wrote:
> Thankyou :D
> Though I haven't been able to figure out what the karma actually is or
> where it comes from? If someone could explain or link to where
Thankyou :D
Though I haven't been able to figure out what the karma actually is or
where it comes from? If someone could explain or link to where it was
set up, that might be helpful...
On 2017-10-22 13:25, Alexis Hunt wrote:
This is a Notice of Honour: Cuddle Beam loses a Karma for blocking
taking from inactives was my secondary thought on policy, if random
doesn't work out.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> This is a notice of honour. My policy is to remove karma from
> inactives in protest at their nonexistence (unless one of y'all really
> cheeses me off)
>
> -1 karma from
67 matches
Mail list logo
