Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

Actually my point (2) was my greater worry, not rules. It implies that your ratification may be utterly meaningless for the purpose you made it for - it creates an agency with a legally tweaked age but changes nothing in the past that depended on whether it existed on that date. Greetings,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

I ratify this: > {{There is an agency with the following text. > "G: Overlord of Dunce (GOD) > Head: Quazie > Agents: G. > Powers: 1 - The ability to give notice to establish Agencies with > Quazie as the Director or Head and G. as the only agent > 2 - The ability to establish Agencies with

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 09:24 +0200, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > > To avoid committing fraud I hereby specify that the document I am > > attempting to ratify is inaccurate to the extent that no such agency > > exists. Oh, I made a typo in the below ratification

DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: To avoid committing fraud I hereby specify that the document I am attempting to ratify is inaccurate to the extent that no such agency exists. Oh, I made a typo in the below ratification as well. I object to that ratification and intend to, without objection,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 10:13 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I’m curious about the RWO “no rule changes thing.” It says something > along the lines of “RWO can’t cause a rule change.” That obviously > bans direct rule changes, but what about RWO’ing into existence a > proposal with FOR votes from

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 13:20 VJ Rada wrote: > " what about RWO’ing into existence a proposal with FOR votes from > everybody set to resolve tomorrow?" > > This works. AIS did it to fix the "without objection" thing. > > "Even scarier question: what happens to the gamestate if

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

" what about RWO’ing into existence a proposal with FOR votes from everybody set to resolve tomorrow?" This works. AIS did it to fix the "without objection" thing. "Even scarier question: what happens to the gamestate if we discover that ratification itself has no effect?" We change the rules so

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

I’m curious about the RWO “no rule changes thing.” It says something along the lines of “RWO can’t cause a rule change.” That obviously bans direct rule changes, but what about RWO’ing into existence a proposal with FOR votes from everybody set to resolve tomorrow? If that doesn’t work, what

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

Oh, you're quite right, yes. You can change votes on old proposals, which then changes the ruleset, but you can't affect those proposals themselves if that causes a change. On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 00:51 +1000, VJ Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

No, yeah, the proposal was rejected anyway. As I recall it repealed the already-repealed dictatorship and existed only for the purpose of a CFJ. I'm just doing this because of the uncontroversial nature of GOD, the amount of reports it existed in, and the fact that SOME game actions rested on it.

DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 18:18 +1000, VJ Rada wrote: > An agency has been listed for a long time called "G is Overlord of > Dunce". Is is a verb, so that agency is clearly not an agency. The > problem? That agency was used months ago (like...May) to create > another agency, which was used to pend a

DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

Does your report not self-ratify? Gaelan > On Sep 27, 2017, at 1:18 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > An agency has been listed for a long time called "G is Overlord of > Dunce". Is is a verb, so that agency is clearly not an agency. The > problem? That agency was used months ago