twg wrote:
V.J. Rada didn't vote in the most recently resolved batch of proposals, and all
the ones before that have self-ratified already, so there is no effect on
proposals. Don't know what it means for officer elections, though - Murphy can
probably say more definitively.
Any election
Given the 2 uncontested cfjs ruling the votes at issue invalid, the answer
is 4 clearly
On Wed., 1 Aug. 2018, 1:55 pm Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:50 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
>
> > (I may be overlooking any number of things here; if I
However, PSS did say this: "
it also invalidates Trigon's vote. When I was writing the CFJ, I read
the vote as being ambiguous about how changes to the other people's
votes would affect the caster's vote, but now reading it, I am finding
it unambiguous, so I would be happy to motion to reconsider,
G. wrote:
I called the CFJ on June 24 and argued that summary judgement DIDN'T prevent
a payday:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-June/038657.html
but I don't see it listed in the next Gazette so maybe it was missed? (this
was also during the peak of
G. contested those, with supporting logic affixed, which is why this case
exists. It wasn't an attempt to get around an appeal, either, if you look
at the justification.
-Aris
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:57 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Given the 2 uncontested cfjs ruling the votes at issue invalid, the
(I may be overlooking any number of things here; if I am, please
let me know.)
Per Rule 879, quorum on these decisions was N-2, where N was the
number of players who voted on the last proposal decision before
they were initiated (not resolved).
* They were initiated on July 15
* Last proposal
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:50 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
> (I may be overlooking any number of things here; if I am, please
> let me know.)
>
> Per Rule 879, quorum on these decisions was N-2, where N was the
> number of players who voted on the last proposal decision before
> they were initiated
Actually, I just noticed and (if we accept those CFJs) there should be
three invalid votes as opposed to four. One of those CFJs invalidated "I do
the same as the last four people in this thread" but someone else voted
identically but replacing four with three.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:58 PM,
Doesn't include G.'s land grants (proposal 8064).
Also, may I suggest allowing people to destroy apples and corn to increase _any
player's_ EP? Makes zombie movement less of a faff.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On July 31, 2018 11:16 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> This is something
A playercan destroy... Eir is singular, and you're really talking about one
player at a time anyway.
-Aris
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:16 PM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> This is something I've been meaning to do for a long time. It's taken
> from MALF. I submit and pend the following proposal:
>
>
Can you explain this? I don't understand what you're saying I should to.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018, 18:00 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A playercan destroy... Eir is singular, and you're really talking about one
> player at a time anyway.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Tue, Jul 31,
True, but the fees rule may or may not change that, depending on how it and
the upkeep cost provision are construed.
-Aris
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:55 PM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> Historically, you only need to send a message stating that you pay nonzero
> upkeep costs.
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018,
I bid 1 on 2, 4, 5
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018, 17:24 Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I bid 1 coin in auction 3.
>
> Much more civilised. I like this new system.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On July 31, 2018 10:23 PM, Corona wrote:
>
> > I bid 10 coins in auction 1.
> >
> > On
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018, 17:20 Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Doesn't include G.'s land grants (proposal 8064).
>
Darn. I kept reminding myself I had to include that in the proposal while
writing it up but I just didn't do it. Aaaah, this is why I can't trust
myself to immediately pend stuff.
Also,
I'm sorry for my lack of clarity. The proposal currently says "Players
can destroy one apple to increase eir...". Players is plural, whereas
eir is singular, so they do not agree in number. You could change eir
to their, but I was suggesting that it might be clearer to make the
subject singular.
Historically, you only need to send a message stating that you pay nonzero
upkeep costs.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018, 18:48 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I've missed this, haven't I. Sigh. Well, I can only hope that
> the ruling is that upkeep costs of 0 don't need
Well, I've missed this, haven't I. Sigh. Well, I can only hope that
the ruling is that upkeep costs of 0 don't need to be paid. We really
need to make upkeep a With Notice action.
-Aris
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:35 AM Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Wow, this report looks good. :D
>
> This is a notice
I added some more shorthand and made the changes suggested. Somehow I
know I've messed up something, though, so I'm not pending it just yet.
Title: Revamping movement v2
AI: 1
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:
Amend rule 2003 "Actions in Arcadia" by replacing its text with:
Energy Points
18 matches
Mail list logo
