DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2019-02-10 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote: CoE: the Astronomor weekly report was not published the day before the Unix epoch. Maybe the Astronomor found a wormhole. Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-07-08 Thread Kerim Aydin
And, er, taking this to its conclusion: If Officeholder is a switch without a default value, then a Weekly Report can't imply that any switches left off the list are at their default value (because there is no default value). Therefore such a document isn't purporting to be a a list of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-07-08 Thread Kerim Aydin
This is a very interesting case. I'm not sure your logic works because R2162 contains the *definition* of a switch, and rules that use terms defined elsewhere (like R1006) inherently *defer* to their definitions if the definitions are of the same power. (combo of R1030 and R217). Think about

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-07-08 Thread Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
I think that does work, so then we just need to ratify that omd is the holder. On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 6:19 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > It's rule 1006, "Offices", that says Officeholder is a switch, and it's rule > 2162, "Switches", that (indirectly) says it's not. Rule 1030, "Precedence >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-07-08 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
It's rule 1006, "Offices", that says Officeholder is a switch, and it's rule 2162, "Switches", that (indirectly) says it's not. Rule 1030, "Precedence between Rules", gives a handy algorithm for resolving contradictions between rules: - Compare their powers (Not useful, they're both power 2.0)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-07-08 Thread Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Well, I didn't realise how large of a problem this was, but that is very problematic. On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 5:45 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Erk. > > If the July 1 ADoP Report self-ratified, then ratification beats the > Distributor rule in ratifying the Distributor officeholder at its default

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-07-08 Thread Kerim Aydin
Erk. If the July 1 ADoP Report self-ratified, then ratification beats the Distributor rule in ratifying the Distributor officeholder at its default value. EXCEPT. Double-erk. R1006 doesn't explicitly define a default value for Officeholder switches. Either we indirectly infer "vacant" as

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-06-17 Thread Edward Murphy
G. wrote: Which means, YIKES - a person who wins an election, but was the interim officeholder before the election, STAYS INTERIM, because e didn't "become its holder by winning an election". Even if e nominated emself/ consented/etc. Unless I'm missing something, this is incorrect. Rule

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-06-11 Thread Alex Smith
On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 08:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Which means, YIKES - a person who wins an election, but was the > interim officeholder before the election, STAYS INTERIM, because e > didn't "become its holder by winning an election". Even if e > nominated emself/consented/etc. You could

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 08:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Which means, YIKES - a person who wins an election, but was the > > interim officeholder before the election, STAYS INTERIM, because e > > didn't "become its holder by winning an election". Even

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
Hmm... maybe. So I can stop myself from being installed into office by removing consent, in R1006: A person CANNOT be made the holder of an elected office without eir explicit or reasonably implied consent. This depends on consent at the

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-06-11 Thread Corona
Can you actually do that? I can't find anything that would allow withdrawing nominations. ~Corona On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > > I become a candidate for Referee > > I withdraw my nomination for Referee. -G. > > > >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-02-27 Thread Edward Murphy
G. wrote: I withdraw my nomination for Reportor (if I nominated myself - can't remember). You didn't, but I think I'll need to update the ADoP UI to support that event (at least when someone actually does). That reminds me, I'll also remove Complexity from the report since that's no longer

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-02-26 Thread Ned Strange
I mean I could do a job of it that doesn't suck as much as the job I did on some other roles ;). If you want it I'm happy to cede it but yeah. Or we could repeal it, I think there was discussion of 'we'll give it one more try and then repeal', and I feel like now would be a good time. On Tue, Feb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-02-26 Thread Kerim Aydin
Do you actually want to do it? I'm slacking on it and more than happy for anyone of equal slackness (or less slackness) to hold it. On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > The only reason I nominated for Reportor is because it was listed as > nobody standing for it. > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-02-26 Thread Ned Strange
The only reason I nominated for Reportor is because it was listed as nobody standing for it. On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Ned Strange wrote: >> With two support, I intend to inititate an election for Notary. I >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-02-25 Thread Aris Merchant
Yes, I just think you might do better in a job with a little bit more structure. Still, it was one report, and it's not like it really matters. -Aris On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 6:09 PM Ned Strange wrote: > Good memory, but you'll also note that I wrote a proposal

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-02-25 Thread Ned Strange
Good memory, but you'll also note that I wrote a proposal designed to stop that kind of behaviour. On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > I support, and hope you'll run for it. I wanted to take Notary, but there's > no way I'd have the time

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2017-09-14 Thread Kerim Aydin
Uck "SHALL or else INEFFECTIVE" is ugly, a double penalty. Make it "CANNOT claim a reward without listing the number of shinies..." On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > ugh too late. I guess issue me a card, although I can't point a finger. > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Owen Jacobson

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2017-09-14 Thread VJ Rada
ugh too late. I guess issue me a card, although I can't point a finger. On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Sep 13, 2017, at 7:53 PM, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> I claim the reward for this. > > From recently-enacted proposal 7845: > >>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2017-09-14 Thread Owen Jacobson
> On Sep 13, 2017, at 7:53 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > I claim the reward for this. From recently-enacted proposal 7845: > Amend R2496 "Rewards" by, at the end of the first paragraph, adding: > > When a player claims a reward, e SHALL list the number of shinies e > receives,

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2017-09-14 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: I publish the following ADoP weekly report. The alignments are rather out of whack here (and not just the one with Japanese in). Greetings, Ørjan. Informal Measures Consolidation (number of filled offices over number of officeholders):

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2017-09-13 Thread VJ Rada
Accepted, although that does not self-ratify I don't think. On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Josh T wrote: > CoE: I don't think I've held my office since August. > > 天火狐 > > On 13 September 2017 at 19:52, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> I publish the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2017-09-06 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote: > I won't accept or deny this until e responds. > > Unrelated, are you voting on the elections other than Herald? Yah I'll vote when I see if there's multiple people who want any of these or not. competitive elections are more fun :)

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2017-09-06 Thread V.J Rada
I won't accept or deny this until e responds. Unrelated, are you voting on the elections other than Herald? On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote: >> Office Holder Since Last Election Can Elect[1] >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2017-06-10 Thread Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
I think Game custom indicates that it is fine. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Jun 9, 2017, at 6:32 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Quazie wrote: >> >>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2017-06-09 Thread Aris Merchant
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Quazie wrote: > > ACCEPTED: Though I still have some doubts about your formatting, as it's not > 100% certain that your e-mails are 'Purporting to be a Promotor's report' as > the rules indicate they should, especially when the e-mails seemed

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2017-06-07 Thread Quazie
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 00:06 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Quazie wrote: > > > > > > Office M[1] Report Last Published Late[2] > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2017-05-26 Thread Quazie
Additional nit: Text of R2154 now has 1. and 2. not a. and b. See below from current slr: https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/slr.txt Rule 2154/49 (Power=2) Election Procedure A player CAN initiate an election for a specified elected office for which no election is already in

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2017-05-26 Thread Quazie
Since is useful for a number of things - such as Ribbons, Patent Titles, and the like. History is also missing from the Prime Minister and Speaker happenings, though I don't really care about that missing (as missing events don't matter for ratification) I also would like, though don't demand, a