twg wrote:
G. wrote:
On 2/10/2020 3:09 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Murphy wrote:
Alexis wrote:
I intend, with 2 Support, to initiate an election for each of the
following offices:
* Assessor, as I'm dissatisfied with the sparse content of resolutions;
* Notary, as it is a brand new office
G. wrote:
> On 2/10/2020 3:09 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > Murphy wrote:
> >> Alexis wrote:
> >>
> >>> I intend, with 2 Support, to initiate an election for each of the
> >>> following offices:
> >>>
> >>> * Assessor, as I'm dissatisfied with the sparse content of resolutions;
> >>> * Notary, a
On 2/9/20 7:29 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote:
> I would absolutely prefer to see the full version from that site
> posted to the mailing lists as it makes it much easier to work out.
> Last time I mentioned conditional votes I believe you didn't mention
> this site, and that was defini
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 19:17, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 2/9/20 7:14 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote:
> > * Assessor, as I'm dissatisfied with the sparse content of resolutions;
>
> What other content would you like in the resolutions? I'll also point
> out there is more i
I'm happy to give up Treasuror if anyone is interested, or maybe
Registrar if someone really wants it.
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 04:08, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Is anyone else interested in Rulekeepor right now? If you are, I'm good
> with letting an election play out, though I really do enjoy the job
> On Jun 22, 2019, at 11:39 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Or a proposal resolution, for that matter.
>
>
Hey, I'm not late yet! Planning to resolve the outstanding ones today if I
can...
Or a proposal resolution, for that matter.
On 6/22/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/21/2019 7:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I refuse to use it to help in scams, even when people offer bribes.
It's true - I've tried.
Speaking of which, I'm hoping to see a proposal distribution this week -
t
On 6/21/2019 7:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I refuse to use it to help in scams, even when people offer bribes.
It's true - I've tried.
Speaking of which, I'm hoping to see a proposal distribution this week -
there's some stuff in there I'm concerned about on timeliness.
You could still bribe them with getting a win in the scam, if it's proposal
based. Maybe with the text "X gets a win, then Y gets a win", therefore
making the scammer the speaker. This is actually my one regret with the one
time I win the game, I should have made me win last haha.
On Sat, Jun 22,
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 20:00 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Anyhow, I've been contacted for scams at least twice, and refused to
> actively help each time.
This is the the first thing you've said that's left me less than fully
onboard with you as Promotor :-D
(I miss the days when you could bribe o
The Promotor has discretion over when e distributes proposals, which
is surprisingly important for scams. There are some scams that depend
on very tight timing, usually because they require something to be
done at the end of the voting period. For instance, there was once a
scam where people could
You can change the order of proposals as Promotor or Assessor which
sometimes affects a lot. Also they can still change the text and hope that
nobody notices until it becomes self-ratifying.
Also support my ADoP intent
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:48 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> How exactly does one abu
How exactly does one abuse the position of Promotor? It doesn't seem
like the office has much discretion over what it does. The only thing I
can see is deciding whether or not to retry FAILED QUORUM proposals.
Changing the text of a proposal (or something like that) could probably
be construed
I have zero objection to Aris maintaining that role
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:40 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I assure you, I’m not plotting anything malevolent. I just really enjoy the
> work, and it’s become part of my routine. I’d deeply miss it if no longer
That doesn't sound suspicious at all...
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 10:28 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
It’s kind of hard to communicate subtleties over text, so just so I’m
clear: I’d really, really, really like to remain Promotor. :)
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:53 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflife
It’s kind of hard to communicate subtleties over text, so just so I’m
clear: I’d really, really, really like to remain Promotor. :)
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:53 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to remain as Promotor, if the public doesn’t mind.
>
> As I understand it, you can have an election for
> imposed offices, it just can't be imposed on someone who didn't consent.
I think you at least need to use the method in R2154(a) which requires
2 support to initiate the election. 2154(b) requires the office to be
interim, and the definition of
Falsifian wrote:
Can you have an election for imposed offices? I thought Comptrollor was
imposed, but not 100% sure.
Yes, Comptrollor is imposed. I sent a message about it at 04:24 UTC.
It is, and I fixed the ADoP database to flag it as such (and fix the
spelling as well). As I understand i
Thanks, I'll try that. Though in this case I didn't even find it in spam.
On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 16:36, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I also received the original message (via an enterprise gmail if it
> matters).
>
> Note a couple months ago when I migrated to gmail I had to explicitly
> whitelist e
Neither did I, and I have such a filter.
-Aris
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 1:00 PM James Cook wrote:
> Thanks, I'll try that. Though in this case I didn't even find it in spam.
>
>
> On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 16:36, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > I also received the original message (via an enterpris
I also received the original message (via an enterprise gmail if it
matters).
Note a couple months ago when I migrated to gmail I had to explicitly
whitelist everything with to:agoranomic.org because some people kept ending
up in spam (can't remember if Murphy was one of them).
On 5/10/2019 11
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
- In terms of automation, a system would have to distinguish initial
reports from replies-to-the-report both in subject lines or in messages.
This is why I said the [officer] had to be the first thing on the
subject line (to prevent "Re:" messages from bei
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:06 AM Alex Smith
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2018-06-22 at 09:48 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > Historically we've aggressively avoided mandating format, but I for
> > > one have no problem mandating that for a Report to be a R
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:06 AM Alex Smith
wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-06-22 at 09:48 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Historically we've aggressively avoided mandating format, but I for
> > one have no problem mandating that for a Report to be a Report it must
> > have an [Officer] tag as the first thin
On Fri, 2018-06-22 at 09:48 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Historically we've aggressively avoided mandating format, but I for
> one have no problem mandating that for a Report to be a Report it must
> have an [Officer] tag as the first thing in the subject line (might also
> help with all those "is t
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> > Checking for late reports sounds like something that could
> > realistically be automated. Perhaps that would help to fix the issue?
> > ADoP seems like possibly the most automatable of all the offices.
>
> It mostly is, provided I
ais523 wrote:
Checking for late reports sounds like something that could
realistically be automated. Perhaps that would help to fix the issue?
ADoP seems like possibly the most automatable of all the offices.
It mostly is, provided I don't get significantly behind on entering
changes. (Again.)
I'm planning, absent a convincing argument about why this is a hideously
bad idea, to withdraw. I've never really wanted the office, and I'm a bit
uneasy about taking on more workload. At the time I joined, I was unaware
of any candidacy except Rada's. Under those circumstances, I wanted to
provide
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-06-18 at 09:40 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Honestly the main reason I didn't run again is that checking for past
> > reports is a pain even with timely ADoP reports at hand (and I didn't
> > want to be haphazard either).
>
> This is the ma
On Mon, 2018-06-18 at 09:40 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Honestly the main reason I didn't run again is that checking for past
> reports is a pain even with timely ADoP reports at hand (and I didn't
> want to be haphazard either).
This is the main reason I quit Referee too (although checking for la
Honestly the main reason I didn't run again is that checking for past
reports is a pain even with timely ADoP reports at hand (and I didn't
want to be haphazard either).
In one of the old blotting systems, finger-pointing for specific crimes
was the job of whomever tracked the records involved;
I very much liked your blotting policy. I can't say exactly how careful I'm
going to be about checking for missing reports, so my policy may end up
being more like o's in that regard. I maintain, however, that Corona's
policies don't sound entirely unreasonable, and e probably has more time to
devo
False, what made you think that? Players are dissatisfied if reports are
missed; oh yes, persons missing reports will be punished with atom-clock
precision and a camel's perseverance. (and an impeachment will be attempted
if the person fails to respond for long enough)
~Corona
On Mon, Jun 18, 201
So to clarify, I shouldn't expect a consistent punishment if I miss a report?
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018, Corona wrote:
> Well, if it's YOU who's asking, then why, I'll blot in exactly the same way
> as you! ;)
>
> Nah, I'll just consider the individual circumstances of each case and Eris'
> mood whe
Well, if it's YOU who's asking, then why, I'll blot in exactly the same way
as you! ;)
Nah, I'll just consider the individual circumstances of each case and Eris'
mood when blotting, I don't really have any blanket policies. I will blot
in such a way that maximizes the sum of satisfaction of the p
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> On 09/28/17 14:26, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 19:06 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >>> I submit the following and spend 1 AP to pend it:
> >>> I pend this proposal for 1 AP.
> >> IIRC these both
On 09/28/17 14:26, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 19:06 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>>> I submit the following and spend 1 AP to pend it:
>>> I pend this proposal for 1 AP.
>> IIRC these both work, leaving you out of AP for the week.
> I don't
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 19:06 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > I submit the following and spend 1 AP to pend it:
> > I pend this proposal for 1 AP.
>
> IIRC these both work, leaving you out of AP for the week.
I don't think so.
CFJ 3529 found recently that s
@K You may want to "TTttPF" (This Time to the Proper Forum) your post as is
usual when making such an error.
天火狐
On 23 August 2017 at 16:14, Quazie wrote:
> No you don't - This is a message to the discussion forum, and thus is just
> a statement, not an action.
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 7:29
No you don't - This is a message to the discussion forum, and thus is just
a statement, not an action.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 7:29 AM Kyle Anderson
wrote:
> I vote for myself.
>
>
>
> -K
>
>
>
> *From: *Aris Merchant
> *Sent: *Tuesday, August 22, 2017 11:55 PM
> *To: *agora-busin...@agoranomic
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On 30/08/16 23:28, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > The question is whether a vote like this invalidates just itself,
> > or invalidates my vote as well...
> >
>
> That's exactly what I intend to find out. My interpretation of R2127 is that
> both votes are
On 30/08/16 23:28, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The question is whether a vote like this invalidates just itself,
or invalidates my vote as well...
That's exactly what I intend to find out. My interpretation of R2127 is
that both votes are affected.
--
aranea
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> Remind me to refer to myself as "Wargle".
>
> —the Warrigal
>
I support and do so.
~ Roujo
On Sep 2, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Luis Ressel wrote:
>> If wobble
>
> Now don't let's start that again!
>
> [We have woggle (currently playing, whom you're talking about) and
> Wooble (lurking and/or gone). It was an in-joke briefly to use
> "wobble" for one
And again an unwanted CC: . I promise those will stop and also that
you'll get proper 72 character wide mails from me as soon as I'm back
home next week.
--
aranea
On 23 July 2013 15:12, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> Good luck on recording THAT in the reports.
It should be OK; it can be reported as "G +/- n" for some n, and it
should be easy to tell when it's greater than anyone else's number of
Yaks (always). Of course it would be interesting to do trades of a
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 7:54 PM, James Beirne wrote:
> As an aside, are non-integer denominations of Yaks permitted?
No, since units of currency are merely fungible instances of assets.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Taral wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Since nobody responded to this inquiry I'll treat this message as if
>> it was processed on Sept 15, 00:59 UTC (this seems to be when it
>> finally cleared the list).
>
> Very Old Precedents say
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Since nobody responded to this inquiry I'll treat this message as if
> it was processed on Sept 15, 00:59 UTC (this seems to be when it
> finally cleared the list).
Very Old Precedents say that the effective date is 2009/09/13 01:58 (TDOC).
-
2009/9/15 Sean Hunt :
> Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>>
>> 2009/9/15 Sean Hunt :
>>>
>>> Sean Hunt wrote:
I withdraw 2 * No Confidence for 110zm.
I play No Confidence, specifying the IADoP.
Since it's gone longest without an election, I initiate an election for
Insulator.
>>
Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
2009/9/15 Sean Hunt :
Sean Hunt wrote:
I withdraw 2 * No Confidence for 110zm.
I play No Confidence, specifying the IADoP.
Since it's gone longest without an election, I initiate an election for
Insulator.
-coppro
All of these fail.
Why?
Because I have 45 zm, I have
2009/9/15 Sean Hunt :
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>>
>> I withdraw 2 * No Confidence for 110zm.
>> I play No Confidence, specifying the IADoP.
>> Since it's gone longest without an election, I initiate an election for
>> Insulator.
>>
>> -coppro
>
> All of these fail.
>
Why?
--
-Tiger
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 02:25, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:22, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> comex wrote:
I play No Confidence, initiating an election for the office of Anarchist.
>>> I deputize for Anarchist to deal myself two Distrib-u-Matic cards and
>>> on
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:22, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>> I play No Confidence, initiating an election for the office of Anarchist.
>>>
>> I deputize for Anarchist to deal myself two Distrib-u-Matic cards and
>> one Committee card.
>>
> Actually, the last of these fail
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 22:45, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:22, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> comex wrote:
I play No Confidence, initiating an election for the office of Anarchist.
>>> I deputize for Anarchist to deal myself two Distrib-u-Matic cards and
>>> on
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:22, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>> I play No Confidence, initiating an election for the office of Anarchist.
>>>
>> I deputize for Anarchist to deal myself two Distrib-u-Matic cards and
>> one Committee card.
>>
> Can you without intent? It's not
comex wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>> I play No Confidence, initiating an election for the office of Anarchist.
>>>
>> I deputize for Anarchist to deal myself two Distrib-u-Matic cards and
>> one Committee card.
>
> Note that the office is still held b
pikhq wrote:
The role of Assessor has ceased to exist, BTW. ;)
s/Assessor/Accountor/
58 matches
Mail list logo
