On 6/22/2019 11:02 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Jason Cobb wrote:
I note that the Ritual has been performed for 5 continuous weeks.
The ruleset has in the past been Appeased for 5 continuous weeks, but
I had been assuming R2596's "has been continuously appeased at
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Jason Cobb wrote:
> I note that the Ritual has been performed for 5 continuous weeks.
The ruleset has in the past been Appeased for 5 continuous weeks, but
I had been assuming R2596's "has been continuously appeased at the
moment of banishment" meant it had to be
Yes yes yes, fine. I also made an intended ratification just to be entirely
sure;
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM James Cook wrote:
> Nitpick: I believe the ratification you quote failed, but D. Margaux's
> earlier Astronomor report did self-ratify, which is just as good.
>
> See the section
Here's v2 for further comment. Since we've got a while before the next
distribution, I'll leave it up for much longer.
omd: any of your previous comments that I did not specify a resolution
for are resolved as WONTFIX (I think it's just inextricable conditionals
and not regulating matters of
You could just state that
> "none" is not a valid value for the adoption index of proposals.
Jason Cobb
On 6/23/19 6:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Does this do the trick -
Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing:
Adoption index is an untracked switch possessed by
Oops, thanks. I'll make sure the next Registrar report accounts for
zombies being transferred. I think everyone but Rance collected their
zombies.
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 20:11, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I thought we'd done this before, quite recently in fact (unless I'm
>
If your theory of adoption index being 0 is correct, then the attempt to
create the Rule is INEFFECTIVE because of Rule 2140 ("Power Controls
Mutability").
Jason Cobb
On 6/23/19 6:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/23/2019 3:10 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
What happens is that the
Does this do the trick -
Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing:
Adoption index is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
decisions and proposals, whose value is either "none" (default) or
an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9.
with:
That rule is only power 1 and Master is secured at 2. 1885 (zombie
auctions) is power 2.
On Sun., Jun. 23, 2019, 10:08 Jason Cobb, wrote:
> Maybe a more general fix would be in order for auctions?
>
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2551 ("Action End") as follows:
>
> Amend the last paragraph to read:
>
On Sun, 2019-06-23 at 15:01 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 6/23/2019 2:47 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Accepted. I'm guessing that this makes the entire submission invalid.
> > It's possible that it defaults to 1.0, but I think that invalidation
> > is more plausible. Revision: There is no
Proto-Proposal: Moots are moot
(AI = 1.7)
Amend Rule 591 (Delivering Judgements) by appending this text:
* LOGJAMMED, appropriate if there is sufficient disagreement that
any other judgements would lead to indefinite Motions to
Reconsider. Such ambiguity SHOULD be resolved
Oh yeah, I did something stupid and counted from the top of the chart in
the Forbes 500 rather than from the bottom.
Jason Cobb
On 6/23/19 2:02 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Jason Cobb wrote:
I note that the Ritual has been performed for 5 continuous weeks.
The
It was performed twice in the week of 2019-06-10..16. There are still
almost 8 hours left for 2019-06-17..23.
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 15:58, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Also, did anybody perform the ritual last week? If not, then this gets fun.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/23/19 11:41 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I’m not seeing anything to indicate that you’re submitting that as a
proposal; if you want to, make sure you say so.
-Aris
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Maybe a more general fix would be in order for auctions?
>
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2551 ("Action End") as follows:
>
>
Sorry, you're right, UTC is a thing. It's done now anyway.
Jason Cobb
On 6/23/19 12:03 PM, James Cook wrote:
It was performed twice in the week of 2019-06-10..16. There are still
almost 8 hours left for 2019-06-17..23.
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 15:58, Jason Cobb wrote:
Also, did anybody
On Sun, 2019-06-23 at 07:43 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Moots are moot
> (AI = 1.7)
>
> Amend Rule 591 (Delivering Judgements) by appending this text:
>
>* LOGJAMMED, appropriate if there is sufficient disagreement that
> any other judgements would lead to
Yes. AI 3.0 proposals are functionally omnipotent. The reason lies in
Rule 2140, "Power Controls Mutability", which says:
"No entity with power below the power of this rule can
1. cause an entity to have power greater than its own.
2. adjust the power of an instrument with power
True, but other rules state that proposals can generally change rules and
the gamestate in general. This rule only imposes an additional limitation.
If we repealed this rule, any proposal at any power would be able to change
any rule at any power, meaning that power would no longer control
Hi folks,
I thought we'd done this before, quite recently in fact (unless I'm
misunderstanding the question!). CFJs 3693-3694 found that a zombie CAN be
transferred as the result of an auction, under the current rules.
The case arguments are kind of spread in Discussion, but here's a
I vote as follows:
IDAuthor(s) AITitle
---
8188 G. 3.0 Blanket Denial
FOR
8189 Jason Cobb 1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
FOR
8190 G., D Margaux
Alright. So am I on the hook for lying to a public forum, then?
Jason Cobb
On 6/23/19 1:46 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 18:56, Jason Cobb wrote:
For the adoption of Proposal 8182, I earn (8-1)*3=21 Coins
For the adoption of Proposal 8186 I earn (9-0)*3=27 Coins
For the
Does that Rule necessarily imply that an Instrument with power equal to
or above 3.0 CAN cause those changes? If no entity could perform those
changes, that Rule would still be accurate.
Jason Cobb
On 6/23/19 3:30 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Yes. AI 3.0 proposals are functionally omnipotent.
Maybe the best solution is your proposal and secure Master at power
threshold 1 instead of 2. If we want auction rules to be able to govern
zombies, it seems hacky to try to keep the power threshold above that
rule's power.
On Sun., Jun. 23, 2019, 10:41 James Cook, wrote:
> That rule is only
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 2:46 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2019-06-23 at 15:26 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > Can an AI 3.0 proposal create a power 3.1 Rule?
>
> Yes. However, players sometimes consider voting against proposals with
> AI less than the maximium Power they modify on
24 matches
Mail list logo
