On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 05:01, Aris Merchant via agora-business
wrote:
> Fucking hell. I didn't even fix the numbers. I'm so stressed out about
> my mistake that I only fixed half the problem. I am so sorry everyone.
> This is truly mortifying.
If I got this embarrassed every time I made two
> (I seem to find decisions tough. Aris, G. and Alexis have all been
This was meant to say "PM decisions" but is probably true as written.
- Falsifian
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 at 17:30, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 at 12:26, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > Proto: Amend the paragraph in question to:
> >
> >The winner of the lot SHALL, in a timely fashion, pay a fee (the
> >number of
Sorry for the delay. This would be on time if it were an officer's
report, but only barely.
Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries
Report for the week of 2020-02-17..23:
# Summary
The zombie auction mess continues. Discussion of how to fix them
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 04:41, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 1/20/20 4:46 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 03:29, Jason Cobb via agora-official
> > wrote:
> >> PROPOSAL 8286 (I Forbid Vetos!)
> >> FOR (3): Aris, Falsifian, twg
> >> AGAINST (6): Alexis, G., Gaelan,
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 02:10, Rebecca via agora-business
wrote:
> I register
>
> I am interested in judging CFJs
> --
> From R. Lee
Welcome back. I cause R. Lee to receive a welcome package.
(Registrar's note: R. Lee most recently deregistered on January 25,
which is more than 30 days ago.)
-
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 05:41, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
wrote:
> By the way, it's starting to seem awfully inconvenient that any
> contract must have at least two people on whose behalf the contract
> can effectively act.
You may have some more catching up to do on the ruleset after the
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 05:53, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:44 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/22/2020 8:13 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 02:11
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 05:18, Aris Merchant via agora-business
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:14 PM James Cook via agora-business
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 08:34, omd via agora-business
> > wrote:
> > > Note that I long assumed that the past was not part of the "gamestate"
> >
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 04:34, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> A zombie has its voting strength halved.
Specify rounding? Otherwise R2422's provision that voting strength is
an integer might cause this provision to have no effect on zombies
with odd voting strength.
- Falsifian
Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries
For the week 2020-01-13..19:
# Voting
* Voting continues on Proposals 8280-8286. G. pleads for Rule 2597
("Line-item Veto") to not be repealed yet.
# Rules questions
* Debate continues on CFJ 3792, which is
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 21:44, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Our precedents on message timing are pretty messy because we never had
> complete agreement there - but I'm pretty sure we set the final send date
> based on when the message "left your own control and headed to the PF".
>
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 02:11, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Why are we reading the date-stamping to refer to the date-stamp of the
> original message? I would think it obvious that the relevant message is the
> one to the public forum, not the original one which wasn’t to the public
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 10:23, omd via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:07 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > Personally, I’m vaguely of the opinion that we should switch to they/them
> > instead of Spivak in general. Our use of Spivak now feels like using
> >
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 21:54, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> However, it can be blocked by only three objections, and the
> rule refuses to apply any abusive change, which on its own prevents it
> from being used as part of a scam.
Isn't it a memorandum's decision what it finds in
Come back soon!
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 13:31, Rebecca via agora-business
wrote:
>
> I deregister
>
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 8:12 PM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > Aris wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Rebecca via
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 21:53, James Cook wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 21:54, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > However, it can be blocked by only three objections, and the
> > rule refuses to apply any abusive change, which on its own prevents it
> > from being used as part of a
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 22:04, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Over time I've managed to backfill in about half the cases in the
> 3400s, but took time off in the 3500-3600s, so there's still gaps
> there. Getting 10-20 old cases up per month or so, generally working
> backwards.
When
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 04:00, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Rule 991 states:
>
> > At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
> > assigned exactly one judgement.
>
>
> What exactly does it mean for a CFJ to be "assigned exactly one
> judgement"?
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:09, James Cook wrote:
> Are we just going to let a steady stream of sufficiently dedicated
> players claim their standard victories? I say we raise the bar a
> little.
By the way, I don't mean for this comment to take away from G.'s
victory. G. built quite a large
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:58, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:47 AM James Cook via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> > > On 2/6/20 12:02 PM, James C
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:52, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 2/6/20 1:49 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > Title: Blink test v1.1
> > AI: 1
> > Chamber: Legislation
> > Text: {
> >
> > Amend Rule 2601 to read in full:
> >
> > If this is the only sentence in this rule, and it has been at
Thought of another comment:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 22:56, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> that revert what it has already done. Additionally, this interpretation
> would likely break self-ratification of switch reports, which would be
> against the best interests of the game, so Rule 217
Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries
Report for the week of 2020-01-27..02-02:
# Summary
Welcome Tcbapo!
A lot happened last week. twg won the game the hard way. Many parts of
the rules are changed after the adoption of twelve proposals, and
voting
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 2/6/20 12:02 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > It's not clear to me your judgement would break self-ratification of
> > switch reports. Aris's documents were written in an unusual way: they
> > said that at some earlier date, the
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 22:56, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 2/1/20 7:05 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > On 2/1/20 6:57 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> >> I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a motion to reconsider.
> > I self-file a motion to reconsider in CFJ 3788.
> >
>
This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction", in
the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification
failing due to minimal gamestate changes being ambiguous. It is a more
radical change and makes the use of ratification less concise, but in
my opinion the
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 16:30, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-02-01 at 16:17 +0000, James Cook via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction",
> > in the sense that I think it also fixes the problem
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 18:20, James Cook wrote:
> Bah, sorry, I overlooked the stuff about ordering of facts when I wrote that.
I mean ordering the evaluation of legal fictions.
Finally had time to read this sort-of-carefully. It do like it better
than the current "minimally modified" language for ratification.
Wasn't there a time in the past when ratification worked by the rules
simply declaring that when a document is ratified, it becomes true at
the time specified? I
On Sat., Feb. 1, 2020, 12:57 James Cook, wrote:
> Finally had time to read this sort-of-carefully. It do like it better
> than the current "minimally modified" language for ratification.
>
> Wasn't there a time in the past when ratification worked by the rules
> simply declaring that when a
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 03:15, omd via agora-business
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 6:29 PM Aris Merchant via agora-official
> wrote:
> > 8308& Falsifian3.0 Imposing order on the order
> AGAINST; I think this is too vague to be a valid rule change
Are you referring to this
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 00:35, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 19:22, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/1/20 7:20 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > > I submit a proposal as follows:
> > >
> > > Title: Unrepetition
> > > AI: 3
> > > Chamber: Efficiency
>
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 23:10, Jason Cobb via agora-business
wrote:
> JUDGEMENT IN CFJ 3788
Okay, completely different, updated comment:
I'm confused. This judgement doesn't seem to consider that
ratification involves two gamestate modifications. One is a
hypothetical "minimal" change, and the
Questions for anyone interested in Agora:
1. Would you be interested in seeing an Agoran newsletter? Not like
"Last week in Agora"; I mean something more carefully written and
covering a longer span of time.
2. Do you think my "Last Week in Agora" summaries are useful? Any other
Comments inline. I think I agree with the gist of this, but there are
parts I'm confused about, and also, I don't quite buy one of your
arguments (but it could be because I'm confused).
> Rule 1551 states that the gamestate is "minimally modified to make the
> ratified document as true and
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 23:25, James Cook wrote:
> Wait, I'm confused. Which document are you talking about? And what
> does "solely through a lack of change by ratification" mean?
(These arguments are moot now that I've responded to the official
judgment, but ignore this particular argument
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 21:49, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
wrote:
> I have two other suggestions after thinking about how to reduce Cyan
> Ribbon shenanigans and make it a more interesting thing to obtain that
> genuinely requires working the officer's duties. First, make it so that a
> player
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 21:46, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
wrote:
> 3. Replacing "The action is to be performed with N Agoran consent, and
> the number
> of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N times the number of
> Objectors to the intent." with "The action is to be performed
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 02:46, omd via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:45 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> wrote:
> > Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Default Mechanisms" reading as follows:
>
> I feel like this makes more sense in a high-power rule so it doesn't
> break
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 17:03, James Cook wrote:
> Here's a somewhat different way we could do it:
>
> * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify
> anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. That causes
> the decision to resolve to the (platonically) correct
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 16:55, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 10:32, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > Proto: "Pragmatic decisions", AI-3
> >
> > Amend R208 by replacing:
> > 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there
>
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 13:34, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020, 21:25 James Cook via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > 2. Do you think my "Last Week in Agora" summaries are useful? Any other
>
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:52, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Falsifian wrote:
> > Welcome Tcbapo!
> >
> > A lot happened last week. twg won the game the hard way. Many parts of
> > the rules are changed after the adoption of twelve proposals, and
> > voting began on several more,
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 02:42, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 6:25 PM James Cook via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > Questions for anyone interested in Agora:
> >
> > 1. Would you be interested in seeing an Agoran newslett
> voting began on several more, including ways to make the decision
> process smoother.
Small correction: I think only one proposal currently being voted on
is related to improving the decision process.
- Falsifian
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 05:17, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> > I had been imagining the more substantial newsletter being close to
> > quarterly. Looking at that blog, it looks like at least some of them
> > had shorter periods in mind. Any opinions on the relative benefits of
> >
> My apologies for the delayed reply here, but this was intentional and
> I would ask that everyone who voted against it for this reason
> consider voting in favour. This is done to match up with the way that
> proposals work: an AI=1 proposal requires a strict majority, but an
> AI=2 proposal can
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 23:31, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:20 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:07 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The Archives are now CFJ 3805 compliant.
> >
> > After
> > Alternatively, it could be interesting to add a general mechanism for
> > public funding of private projects. E.g. have a singleton Budget
> > switch which lists contracts that get weekly payments. An example
> > might be [{my press contract, 5 Coins}, {Society for the Advancement
> > of
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 21:22, Cuddle Beam via agora-business
wrote:
> I set my master to myself
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNFzfwLM72c
Always a pleasure to have you back! If you're looking for something to do:
* You could try winning yourself in this month's zombie auction. It
wouldn't
It is interesting to consider changing our use of pronouns, but if
we're not changing anything, is there any reason to cover pronouns in
the editorial guidelines at all? I don't see any confusion or
inconsistency related to them, and I expect any new player who has
given the rules even a cursory
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 23:18, omd via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I can at least put it through the formal proposal process, by
> submitting a proposal expressing the sense of Agora that it's okay to
> publish players' email addresses on the web. However, that only
> accounts for current active
Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries
(Sorry for the repeat email; I forgot the subject line the frist time.)
For the week 2020-01-20..26:
# Victory
* G. wins the game by paying a fee of 1000 coins, and tells the story
of eir coins. Thread: "bored
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 15:46, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Also relevant: CFJs 3411-3412.
I was hesitent to raise this morbid concern, but now that the subject
has been broached, are dead former players persons? R869 would seem to
say no. This may affect the accuracy of Tailor
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 23:54, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Falsifian wrote:
> > I was hesitent to raise this morbid concern, but now that the subject
> > has been broached, are dead former players persons? R869 would seem to
> > say no. This may affect the accuracy of Tailor
Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries
For the week 2020-01-20..26:
# Victory
* G. wins the game by paying a fee of 1000 coins, and tells the story
of eir coins. Thread: "bored of liquidity, need to invest"
# Voting
* The H. Assessor resolves
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 00:41, omd via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:17 AM James Cook via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction", in
> > the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 13:27, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020, 19:41 omd via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > A rule may state or imply that 'X is treated as if it
> > were Y', but this is considered an attempt to
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 01:10, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> This is certainly a hell of a lot simpler than the alternative. You've
> dealt pretty convincingly with my complaint about generality; it's not
> general, but it looks like the lack of generality doesn't actually
> turn out
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:43, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 1/30/20 10:21 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > Shouldn't you also say that you resolve these decisions? My
> > understanding is that you're not publishing a report here; you're
> > re-taking some by-announcement actions in case
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 14:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Draft revision, since this is complicated:
>
> All of these CoEs are accepted.
>
> Revised resolutions for 8292-8307:
Shouldn't you also say that you resolve these decisions? My
understanding is that you're not publishing a
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 03:25, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
wrote:
> Amend Rule 2574 (Zombie Life Cycle) by:
> - replacing the first two paragraphs with: {
> Any player CAN, with notice, putrefy player who has not made a public
missing word? "putrefy a player"
> announcement in the past 60
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 18:18, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Well, the outcome is defined by a calculation given by the rules. So
> if, say, an AI=1 proposal has votes FOR equal to votes AGAINST, then
> its outcome is REJECTED. So ratifying outcome means ratifying that
> F>A. But what
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 03:50, Aris Merchant via agora-business
wrote:
> ---
> Title: Promotorial Assignment
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
> Chamber: Legislation
>
> Amend the rule entitled "Proposal Chambers" by adding the text
> "If a proposal in the Proposal Pool has its
Are we sure the first attempt at resolving the decisions didn't
succeed? I've lost track.
In case we're a the situation like Alexis outlined, where the first
succeeds platonically and this one succeeds via self-ratification, I
tried to work out what happened if these proposals were enacted twice.
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 at 01:30, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
wrote:
> then a legal fiction is established that the belief was true at the time of
> the earliest public message indicating the belief; and the gamestate is
> therefore altered as though the belief had been true at that time, in
> For the purpose of such a auction, Agora CAN transfer zombies at
> will, and when Agora would transfer a zombie to a player, this
> rule sets the zombie's master switch to that player.
>
> - Falsifian
Does R2125 mean that I need to state an explicit mechanism here? E.g.
"this
> CFJ: Falsifian initiated a zombie auction this month.
If I don't hear comments to the contrary soon, I'm going to assume
this was TRUE and announce the end of the auction.
Mostly called the CFJ to see if anyone spots bugs in my reasoning. I
might even withdraw the CFJ if people are generally
On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 at 19:12, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
wrote:
> Proposal: Unsubstantive interpretation (AI=3)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing 'A
> "substantive" aspect of an instrument is any aspect that affects the
> instrument's operation.' with 'A
On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 at 22:23, Jason Cobb via agora-business
wrote:
> A person CAN, by announcement, create a specified number of blots in
> eir possession.
You can use the word "grant" as defined by rule 2577. E.g. "A person
CAN grant emself a specified number of blots by announcement.".
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 19:04, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 2/18/2020 10:45 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > For the purpose of such a auction, to transfer a zombie to a
> > player is to set that zombie's master switch to that player, and
On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 at 17:07, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 14:04, James Cook via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > As I pointed out in response to Murphy's "Fix Auctions" proposal, I
> > don't think it works, because master is secured a
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 19:40, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 2/18/20 2:27 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > You can use the word "grant" as defined by rule 2577. E.g. "A person
> > CAN grant emself a specified number of blots by announcement.".
>
>
> Sure, but I don't think that's worth
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 05:20, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 2/19/2020 8:13 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Therefore, I propose an alternate solution: include the officer in the
> > message’s Cc or Bcc header, which solves the above problems:
>
> First reaction:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 21:24, Edward Murphy via agora-official
wrote:
> Proposal 8295 moved office salary reporting to the ADoP.
>
> Wed Jan 29 2020 03:26:29 UTC - initial alleged resolution
> Sat Feb 1 2020 02:24:44 UTC - CoE accepted, corrected resolution
>
> I grant 5 coins to each of these
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 19:04, Gaelan Steele via agora-business
wrote:
> The way zombie auctions work, you can’t bid for yourself—you just bid on the
> auction in general, and then whoever has the highest bid gets Trigon, whoever
> has the second highest gets Nch, whoever has the third highest
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 18:09, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 1/24/2020 3:25 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote:
>
> > I, R. Lee, do register
>
> I have a registration recorded from 12/29/2019, I suppose that was also
> ineffective due to the Troubles, though?
In a couple of
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 20:37, Edward Murphy via agora-business
wrote:
> Proposal: Meaningless extra coins
> (AI = 2, co-author = Alexis)
>
> Amend Rule 2483 (Economics) by appending this text:
>
>Upon doing so, eir remaining Coins (if any) are destroyed.
It would be more fun if it
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 21:15, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 12:17, James Cook via agora-business
> wrote:
> >
> > This is an unofficial report on the ongoing zombie auction. All times UTC.
> >
> > Note: it is not clear that zombie auctions work. It is possible
Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries
Report for the week of 2020-02-03..09:
# Summary
Another week, another victory: Falsifian pays 1,000 Coins to win the
game. No big deal: G. already did it recently, and two other players
own at least 1,000 Coins.
As I pointed out in response to Murphy's "Fix Auctions" proposal, I
don't think it works, because master is secured at power 2.
How about this one?
Title: Auction promotion
AI: 2
Chamber: Economy
[Comment: It's awkward to have a power-2 rule (Zombie Auctions) defer
to the power-1 auction rules
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 13:06, sukil via agora-discussion
wrote:
> El 13/02/2020 a las 13:24, AIS523--- via agora-discussion escribió:
> > On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 12:40 +0100, sukil via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I was reading the rules before registering and came across something
>
This is a little complicated, and I've messed up much simpler auctions
before, so sending out a draft first. If anyone spots an error or can
reduce one of the uncertainties, please let me know.
Draft:
==
Due to at least two uncertainties, we may be in at least three possible
states, covered
Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries
Report for the week of 2020-02-10..16:
# Summary
Welcome sukil! sukil registers and asks questions. One of them has been asked
before, so maybe we'll bring back a FAQ.
Another week, another victory. twg pays 1,000
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 16:58, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 2/21/20 11:51 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > * The Referee finds that Jason did not break the rules by bidding more
> > money than e had in the February zombie auction. Murphy submits a
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 04:13, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 14:18, James Cook wrote:
> > Narrow comment: "except its interpretation" would make more sense to
> > me than "but does not include its interpretation"; the latter feels
> > like a bit of a
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 04:15, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 16:28, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > Actually, I think "at will" is a very broken concept here. The point of
> > it in R2551 is to allow the transfer of assets that a player CAN
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 21:32, Jason Cobb via agora-business
wrote:
> On 2/18/20 3:30 PM, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-02-18 at 15:24 -0500, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> >> I submit the following proposal:
> >>
> >> Title: De-secure Black Ribbons
> >>
> >>
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 22:04, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Agora, by CFJ 3706, is a contract by nature. It's a contract because of the
> way it exists.
>
> And it's probably still invisible because the Ruleset and all of its
> parties (players) still haven't been posted as a *single*
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 04:04, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Aris wrote:
>
> > You might want to check the AI on that?
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 6:13 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Proposal: Fix Auctions
> >>
> >> Amend Rule 2549 (Auction
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 03:19, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
wrote:
> If the number of players participating at a comparable level kept
> increasing, then at some point we might look at splitting off some of
> the discussion to a forum system (even if it was all cc'd to an
> Everything List).
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 00:34, Jason Cobb via agora-business
wrote:
> I just realized I can't actually bid in the zombie auction because I
> already have a zombie (oops).
Oops! Thanks, I missed that.
- Falsifian
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 07:34, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I submit this proposal: {
> Title: Calls with Memoranda
> AI: 2
> Co-authors: Aris, G, Alexis
>
> Create a new Power-2 rule titled “Administrative Opinions”: {
> An officer may publish an Administrative Opinion for a
If anyone would like to be added to the unofficial list of Watchers in
the weekly Registrar report, please let me know.
See the "Watchers" section at https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/weekly/fresh.txt
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 00:25, AIS523--- via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-02-11 at
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 3:16 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > At least 2 or 3 times, someone's actually written a FAQ, and everyone
> > there at the time learns what they need to by editing/commenting on
> > it, then by the time someone else
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 17:34, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 11:17, James Cook via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction", in
> > the sense that I think it also fixes
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 04:04, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I recall you mentioning that you would like a
> system where judges could search topic-relevant rules and a few core
> rules instead of potentially anywhere in the ruleset.
Oh right, yes, that would be nice.
I'm confused
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 19:36, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> This would also
> have the feature of making an officer's memoranda an election issue.
It would be fun to have something for candidates to debate. I suppose
Aris's v2 proto entails this, since it would allow a new officer to
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 07:50, David Seeber wrote:
> Oh dear. I seem to be a zombie again
>
> BVV
>
> David Seeber
Not quite. You just avoided it with that message.
- Falsifian
1 - 100 of 348 matches
Mail list logo
