Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

On Sun, 2018-04-29 at 20:33 +0200, Corona wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn > wrote: > > Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what > > thing let people get them. > > Nothing in particular is specified in the rule, in practice it's

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

Yeah I did that when I was ADoP. It's an easy mistake to make. On 4/29/2018 4:23 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate the decision. -Aris On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:15 AM Ned Strange wrote: Also you

Re: DIS: Vote for me!

For what? And what sort of image would I use? On 4/29/2018 3:17 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: ATMunn wrote: Yeah, the problem with it working that way is that for anyone who doesn't have any sort of theme on, the background is white by default, so there would be no way to differentiate between

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing let people get them. On 4/29/2018 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I vote ATMunn for Tailor. ATMunn - you can deputize for the job. I'm about 99% sure that the only ribbons since the Feb report were this week's black ones.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

I know, I was referring to what the proposal/scam was. On 4/29/2018 2:33 PM, Corona wrote: ​Nothing in particular is​ specified in the rule, in practice it's for scamming/passing a proposal to that effect. ~Corona On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > N I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself speaker. Ørjan offered a theory that zombies CANNOT support anything - while it hasn't been tested in court, I agree with it because of use of the word "consent" in R2124: > A

DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

This is an attempt at a significant reduction in zombie power (so we don't need to repeal such a fun mechanic). I have attempted to keep them usable while at the same time not making them overpowered. This also creates a standard notion of which players are "active" and formalizes the sacrosanct

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate the decision. Although failing to state quorum is not quite the same thing as stating it incorrectly, so I'm not sure Rule 879 actually _says_ that it's not invalidated.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

Yep, your message and the latest Registrar's report are the same font. On 4/29/2018 7:16 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote: Interestingly, this message is not in my normal font, but it is different from the font the report was in. The font of this message isn't even

Re: DIS: Protos on github

G., any opinion on this/my GitHub PR? -Aris On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> I don't know if this will turn out to be useful, but I've put a protos

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

No, never mind, I don't think it does. I can make it work. -Aris On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > If no one objects, I'm going to make it support, object, or resolve, > on the basis that it's a bit easier to write and has a similar

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote: Interestingly, this message is not in my normal font, but it is different from the font the report was in. The font of this message isn't even monospace for some reason. As expected from my theory (that it depends on which of the characters Ø and 天火狐 are

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset. They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker. I move we repeal them. -Aris On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sun, 29

DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

I would be honored to serve as the speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. *frantically looks over rules about the Speaker* On 4/29/2018 2:17 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 12:31 AM Edward Murphy wrote: Aris wrote: I object strongly, given that e is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:43 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen > wrote: > > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the > > > intent and the master supporting. Which e would have

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

If no one objects, I'm going to make it support, object, or resolve, on the basis that it's a bit easier to write and has a similar effect. -Aris On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Actually, on reflection I think zombies are locked out of *all*

Re: DIS: Protos on github

On one read through it's nice - good partitioning (not on a non-tiny device until tomorrow to accept the PR or have a closer edit). On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > G., any opinion on this/my GitHub PR? > > -Aris > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Aris Merchant >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

If you voted for G's recent proposal you are eligible On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:45 AM, ATMunn wrote: > I know, I was referring to what the proposal/scam was. > > > On 4/29/2018 2:33 PM, Corona wrote: >> >> Nothing in particular is specified in the rule, in practice it's

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

I thought it was something like that. It seems I did vote for it. On 4/29/2018 5:06 PM, Ned Strange wrote: If you voted for G's recent proposal you are eligible On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:45 AM, ATMunn wrote: I know, I was referring to what the proposal/scam was. On

DIS: Re: BUS: Setting up money-printing machine

You're not supposed to be able to build a facility without consent though. Just another case of me screwing up. On 4/29/2018 4:22 PM, Corona wrote: Just now I found out that you can upgrade only your own facilities, a bit weird when you consider that you don't even need the owner's consent to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: N I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself speaker. Ørjan offered a theory that zombies CANNOT support anything - while it I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the > > intent and the master supporting. Which e would have had to do anyway, > > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

Actually, on reflection I think zombies are locked out of *all* dependent action steps (intent, support, or object). Even if my legal theory doesn't hold water, it's a good nerf in any case so I'd likely vote for that, most things that are really sensitive are locked behind dependent action

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

​Nothing in particular is​ specified in the rule, in practice it's for scamming/passing a proposal to that effect. ~Corona On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:17 PM, ATMunn wrote: > Alright. Am I eligible for one of those by the way? I forget what thing > let people get them. >

DIS: Re: BUS: Woofers and tweeters

N I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself speaker. On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 12:31 AM Edward Murphy wrote: > >> Aris wrote: >> >> > I object strongly, given that

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

ATMunn wrote: For some reason, this report and many of your other reports show up in a weird font for me. Does this happen to other people? Yes. Interestingly, eir Referee and Registrar reports show up in two /different/ weird fonts, while eir Assessor messages show up in the usual

DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate the decision. -Aris On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:15 AM Ned Strange wrote: > Also you forgot to state the quorum, so this is no Agoran Decision at all. > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Ned

Re: DIS: Vote for me!

ATMunn wrote: Yeah, the problem with it working that way is that for anyone who doesn't have any sort of theme on, the background is white by default, so there would be no way to differentiate between Transparent and White. If anyone has a suggestion, then feel free to let me know what it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting on Tailor

Sorry! I'm still traumatized by the brief period where I had to initiate Agoran Decisions. On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Per Rule 879, failing to state quorum is illegal but does not invalidate > the decision. > > -Aris > > On Sun,

DIS: Re: BUS: Calling a CFJ

If I did use PSS, there would have been 10 voters and the quorum would be 8. On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Ned Strange wrote: > I call a CFJ with the statement "If an Agoran Decision were now > initiated, the quorum would be 8". > > The official Assessment recently