On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 16:20 -0400, Quazie wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
By the way, I really, really, really, really don't think that Cards
and Notes (in current complexity) should exist at the same time. -G.
I believe notes should die.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
As far as I can tell, there's a rough a-d consensus that Notes should be
killed the day after Agora's Birthday and replaced with something
different. Cards would make quite a good something different, IMO.
Sounds good to me.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit the following proposal entitled And then there was silence,
AI=2 please, with the following body:
Repeal rule 2126 the day after agora's birthday.
Unless this is retroactive to the last birthday, that's a no-op
Quazie wrote:
I submit a new proposal entitled And then there was silence. ai=2
with the following body:
proposal
Append the following to R2126:
The day after agora's birthday 2009 this rule repeal's itself.
/proposal
Rules 2228 and 2229 also need to be updated.
Quazie wrote:
I retract the above proposal.
I submit a new proposal entitled And then there was silence. ai=2
with the following body:
proposal
Append the following to R2126:
The day after agora's birthday 2009 this rule repeal's itself.
/proposal
I will only vote for this if something
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
I submit the following proposal entitled And then there was silence,
AI=2 please, with the following body:
Repeal rule 2126 the day after agora's birthday.
Please retract this. It's most appropriate to do this in combination
with the new thing, that is,
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Quazie wrote:
I retract the above proposal.
I submit a new proposal entitled And then there was silence. ai=2
with the following body:
proposal
Append the following to R2126:
The day after agora's birthday 2009 this rule repeal's itself.
/proposal
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 19:07 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I see this proposal not as a way for me to be a jackass, but to reveal
a part of the game as flawed. Scamming is something that is very
intricate in the game, and as a result it should be expected that
someone would submit a proposal
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Oh bribery proposals are cute. It's a good test every so often to see
if the current players are a group of voters you want to be playing a game
with. And deregistration is good test to use as, whichever the answer,
Taral wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Oh bribery proposals are cute. It's a good test every so often to see
if the current players are a group of voters you want to be playing a game
with. And deregistration is good test to use as, whichever
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Taral wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
wrote:
Oh bribery proposals are cute. It's a good test every so often to see
if the current players are a group of voters you want to
2009/5/13 Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Taral wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
wrote:
Oh bribery proposals are cute. It's a good test every so often to
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 12:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable
with 2 Support, or by spending one Note.
A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Undistributable
with 4 Support, or by spending two Notes.
It
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 12:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable
with 2 Support, or by spending one Note.
A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Undistributable
with 4 Support, or
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 12:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable
with 2 Support, or by spending one Note.
A player CAN flip a specified proposal to
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 12:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable
with 2 Support, or by spending one Note.
A player CAN flip
Quazie wrote:
If we are bringing back distributability, i'm going to try to bring
back cards. The issue is that cards need to be a core part of the
rules or they can't have the power to change things like these
switches. Is there any way that a contest could currently flip a
switch like
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 13:00 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 12:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable
with 2 Support, or by spending one Note.
A player CAN flip a
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
Quazie wrote:
If we are bringing back distributability, i'm going to try to bring
back cards. The issue is that cards need to be a core part of the
rules or they can't have the power to change things like these
switches. Is there any way that a
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 12:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
A player CAN flip a specified proposal to
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
Well, the problem is if the proposal's been flipped to undistributable
with 4 support, it could be flipped back with 2 support, which is weird
to say the least. Maybe it should need 6 support to reflip it back, and
likewise the notes should go 1 to flip,
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
Care to re-proto that? Or send the proto just to me and I'll help you
deal (HA pun) with the card rules?
If I can find it I will. -G.
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
Care to re-proto that? Or send the proto just to me and I'll help you
deal (HA pun) with the card rules?
If I can find it I will. -G.
By the way, I really, really, really, really don't think that Cards
and Notes
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
Care to re-proto that? Or send the proto just to me and I'll help you
deal (HA pun) with the card rules?
If I can find it I will. -G.
By
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
Care to re-proto that? Or send the proto just to me and I'll help you
deal (HA pun) with the card rules?
If I can find it I will. -G.
By the way, I really, really, really, really don't think that
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
Care to re-proto that? Or send the proto just to me and I'll help you
deal (HA pun) with the card rules?
If I can find it I will. -G.
By the way, I really,
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Taral wrote:
I guess I'm a little touchy right now because the game has been very
chaotic recently.
I submit the
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposal: Legislative Dominance (AI = 2)
Time to bring back the no bribes clause?
--
Taral tar...@gmail.com
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
Proposal: Legislative Dominance (AI = 2)
I pledge to vote AGAINST this proposal.
(As a note: If it passes, I will not come back. Enjoy your empty
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
Proposal: Legislative Dominance (AI = 2)
I pledge to vote AGAINST this
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
I see this proposal not as a way for me to be a jackass, but to reveal a
part of the game as flawed. Scamming is something that is very intricate in
the game, and as a result it should be expected that someone would
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
I see this proposal not as a way for me to be a jackass, but to reveal a
part of the game as flawed. Scamming is something that is very intricate
in
comex wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
I see this proposal not as a way for me to be a jackass, but to reveal a
part of the game as flawed. Scamming is something that is very
The Walrus scam caused deregistrations. My Outrage-O-Meter suggests
this passing would lead to your house being set on fire.
On 2009-05-13, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposal: Legislative Dominance (AI = 2)
All players who vote FOR this proposal (at the time the voting
As a general rule, a high-powered proposal can do anything.
On 2009-05-13, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Aaron
Yally wrote:
Proposal: Legislative Dominance (AI = 2)
Conditional: {
if the proposal would not be adopted if I voted AGAINST,
then AGAINST,
otherwise if the proposal would not be adopted if I didn't vote,
then no vote,
otherwise FOR
}
Ed Murphy wrote:
Yally wrote:
Proposal: Legislative Dominance (AI = 2)
Conditional: {
if the proposal would not be adopted if I voted AGAINST,
then AGAINST,
otherwise if the proposal would not be adopted if I didn't vote,
then no vote,
otherwise FOR
}
Conditional:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:15 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
How is that any different from, say, inactivating people, or making
contracts contests? It's all switches and flipping.
It's a metagame distinction. This is tatamount to saying support this
scam or get kicked out of the game.
--
On Tue, 12 May 2009, Taral wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
I see this proposal not as a way for me to be a jackass, but to reveal a
part of the game as flawed. Scamming is something that is very intricate in
the game, and as a result it
On Tue, 12 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
Yally wrote:
Proposal: Legislative Dominance (AI = 2)
Conditional: {
if the proposal would not be adopted if I voted AGAINST,
then AGAINST,
otherwise if the proposal would not be adopted if I didn't vote,
then no vote,
otherwise FOR
}
40 matches
Mail list logo
