On 9/17/24 4:52 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
I don't like the perverse incentives that crystals create. If someone
else writes a proposal that touches a lot of rules, then I'm
incentivized to vote AGAINST that proposal for economic reasons, even if
it's good. I try not to do that,
On 9/17/24 16:48, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 3:23 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>>> 9183~ snail 1.0 Creation Crystals
>> AGAINST. I continue to not like crystals.
>>
>>
> Do you have any sug
On Tue, 2024-08-20 at 16:47 -0400, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 8/20/24 8:49 AM, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
>
> > > 9162~ Mischief 1.0 Shameless Bribery 2A
> > AGAINST: I am philosophically opposed to bribing people to pass
> > proposals using assets/rewards t
Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2024-08-20 14:36]:
> On 8/20/24 13:40, juan via agora-business wrote:
> > 9162: At the flip of a coin, FOR if heads, AGAINST if tails.
> > 9163: At the flip of a coin, FOR if heads, AGAINST if tails.
> > 9164: At the flip of a coin, FOR if heads, AGAINST if tails.
>
On 7/1/24 11:25, Agora amdw42 via agora-discussion wrote:
> I vote as follows:
>> 9134~ snail, ais523 1.0 It takes two
> FOR
>> 9135~ snail 1.0 Ammo Store
> AGAINST
>> 9136~ Janet, Kate, Mischief 3.0 Sorting out sortition
> FOR
>> 9137~ Quadrantal, Aris
On 2024-06-29 02:37, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
Can I ask why you prefer "last"?
Mostly just vibes, if I'm honest. I find "past" tends to disrupt my flow
of reading.
In my opinion, this just makes searching the rules for relative dates
easier, as "last" is already used to inst
On 6/1/24 17:25, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/1/24 3:57 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>
>> Actually, the fee-based actions rules don't have any special cases for
>> negative values, and you can't destroy a negative number of assets. So I
>> think if the required fee is neg
... whoops
On Sun, 26 May 2024 at 11:43, 4st nomic <4st.no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> sorry Juniper, this was to DIS, make sure you send votes to BUS
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 6:42 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>>
>> I vote as follows:
>>
>> >
>> > > 9114~ snail
sorry Juniper, this was to DIS, make sure you send votes to BUS
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 6:42 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I vote as follows:
>
> >
> > > 9114~ snail 2.0 Grind Stone
> >
> FOR
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > 9115~ snail
On 4/21/24 22:43, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Spending Stone: As the Stonemason, I don't want to incentivize massive
>> numbers of wieldings in the same message because that increases my
>> workload.
>>
> This one doesn't make sense, the stones would probably be wielded anyways,
> a
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 9:10 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 4/21/24 18:04, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 3:12 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >>> 9099~ sna
On 4/21/24 18:04, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 3:12 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>>> 9099~ snail 2.0 Quantum Superstone
>> AGAINST
>>
>>
>>> 9100~ snail 2.0 Spending Sto
On 4/18/24 08:26, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> I think crystal poaching is fine: it's competitive teamwork! I've poached
> Janet for example. Perhaps coauthors need to be rewarded also?
I mean, I wasn't thrilled by that. I think it's reasonable to want to
reap the rewards from your own
I think crystal poaching is fine: it's competitive teamwork! I've poached
Janet for example. Perhaps coauthors need to be rewarded also?
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024, 11:01 PM secretsnail9 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > 9094~ snail, R. Lee 1.0 More inst
On 3/3/24 17:22, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> Would this perhaps allow it to merit a non-AGAINST vote? My fingers are
> crossed.
I'll think about it, but I'm still concerned about the CFJ load.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Would this perhaps allow it to merit a non-AGAINST vote? My fingers are
crossed.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 10:32 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 3/3/24 16:30, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Janet wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/3/24 16:24, Edward
On 3/3/24 16:30, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet wrote:
>
>> On 3/3/24 16:24, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
9068~ Yachay 1.0 Agora of Empires
>>> FOR (without 2 objections is a reasonable guard against trivial
>>> wins, other issues can be ironed out
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 3:03 PM Jimmy via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I vote FOR 9053
>
I think this needs to be sent to agora-business? (yes the default "reply"
option changes replies to agora-discussion)
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
> On Jan 30, 2024, at 8:43 PM, nix via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> On 1/30/24 16:54, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
>> AGAINST (allows for officers to put officework on other players without
>> their consent, also might be broken)
>
> The first is fixable after it passes. What do you
On Sun, 2023-12-17 at 13:05 -0800, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Recommendation: As you suggested on Discord, have the Assessor
> explicitly announce the things being attested. Then submit a new
> proposal to fix the rule bug.
I'm not convinced that actually works – it seems more lik
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:08 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 11/28/23 08:56, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-11-27 11:38]:
> >> Consider a referendum on an AI 3 proposal A. Also consider a Rule X,
> >> powe
On 11/28/23 08:56, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-11-27 11:38]:
>> Consider a referendum on an AI 3 proposal A. Also consider a Rule X,
>> power 2: "If it is greater than 1, The AI of the referendum on proposal
>> A is immediately set to 1."
>>
>> Rule X and
On 6/5/23 18:38, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-05 17:07]:
>> Which specific stamp report? This makes it so that all stamp reports
>> would have ratified correctly, so every week there was a well-known
>> point, as intended. Picking one to ratify either
On 6/5/23 16:57, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-05 16:48]:
>> On 6/5/23 16:45, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> No, it's not. It's a blanket assertion that “everything” is as it
>>> would have been. We don't know that. Maybe the different bytes store
Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-05 17:07]:
> Which specific stamp report? This makes it so that all stamp reports
> would have ratified correctly, so every week there was a well-known
> point, as intended. Picking one to ratify either doesn't actually make
> the present gamestate more cert
On 6/5/23 16:57, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-05 16:48]:
>> On 6/5/23 16:45, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> No, it's not. It's a blanket assertion that “everything” is as it
>>> would have been. We don't know that. Maybe the different bytes store
Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-05 16:48]:
> On 6/5/23 16:45, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> > No, it's not. It's a blanket assertion that “everything” is as it
> > would have been. We don't know that. Maybe the different bytes stored on
> > the server changed the CPU heat emission jus
On 6/5/23 16:45, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-06-05 15:28]:
>> On 6/5/23 13:58, juan via agora-business wrote:
>>> 8998: AGAINST. Quite literally impossible to determine. Also, stamp reports
>>> ratify
>> ais523 got it right:
>>
8998* Janet
On 5/19/23 14:21, Beokirby via agora-discussion wrote:
On 2023-05-18 10:56 PM, Beokirby via agora-business wrote:
On 2023-05-18 10:41 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
ID Author(s) AI Title
---
On 5/19/23 15:21, Beokirby via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2023-05-18 10:56 PM, Beokirby via agora-business wrote:
>> On 2023-05-18 10:41 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
>>> ID Author(s) AI Title
>>> -
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:41 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On 5/19/23 12:26, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote
> >> 8978* Janet 3.0 Authorized initiation
> > FOR, although it doesn't actually solve the issue that brought this
> > up, as it doesn't ratify a
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 10:17 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Also why is radiance at power 1.5 in the first place?
>
Was a minor design choice: because (in drafting points) I thought the
win condition itself (100+ points) should be a trifle more protected
than the award conditions.
On 4/15/23 13:39, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
If you want to change this I recommend writing a proposal to do so.
Right now it feels more like taking hostages than negotiating.
Ope! Disregard, didn't see the proposal introduced after.
--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald, Collector
I didn't notice that and will use conditionals to avoid situations like this
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 4/11/23 09:27, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> >> 8949* Janet 3.0 Might as wel
On 4/10/23 15:42, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> Anyhow, I change my vote on 8949 to FOR.
>>>
>>> P.S.: how scammable?
>>>
>> I could make a pledge to do so with a time limit of 1 second.
> I mean…
>
>> Allowing a pledge to expire without carrying out an action one pledged
>> to do in it cons
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 12:36 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Wow, ok. Just tried to be cheeky and make a fun little action. Note that
> > I also want forgiveness on a missed deadline. Just seemed fair.
>
>
> Sorry, no rebuke implied. And I admittedly didn't check whether you had
> ea
Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-04-10 15:36]:
> On 4/10/23 15:32, juan via agora-business wrote:
> > Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-04-10 15:25]:
> >> On 4/10/23 15:06, juan via agora-business wrote:
> 8949* Janet 3.0 Might as well ask?
> >>> Conditional: FOR
On 4/10/23 15:32, juan via agora-business wrote:
> Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-04-10 15:25]:
>> On 4/10/23 15:06, juan via agora-business wrote:
8949* Janet 3.0 Might as well ask?
>>> Conditional: FOR if any of the following conditions are met:
>>>
>>> - Janet h
secretsnail9 via agora-discussion [2023-04-10 14:10]:
> I recommend tagging your proposals with "[Proposal]". I almost missed
> G.'s proposal because it wasn't tagged, and once I got it I thought I had
> them all, but apparently not. It's my bad for missing (@Promotor) though,
> even if [Proposal]
nix via agora-discussion [2023-04-10 14:11]:
> On 4/10/23 14:06, juan via agora-business wrote:
> > > 8950~ nix 2.0 Major Stamp Reform
> > AGAINST. Don't touch my stamps.
> >
>
> Ugh, I give up. I don't think there's a good consensus on what kind of play
> people want righ
On Mon, 2023-04-10 at 09:11 -0500, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 4/10/23 07:40, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> > AGAINST - I agree with most of this, but halving stamps every month is
> > too frequent, and likely going to lead to very uninteresting gameplay
> > (I suspect there isn't eno
On 4/2/23 15:32, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
>
>>> 8945~ snail 2.0 Going up
>> AGAINST - what a horribly overpowered idea, rule power shouldn't be
>> gamefied by ephemera.
> It's fine if it's overpowered, it's quarterly! (Glances at the recursion
> stone)
>
> But
man. 20. mar. 2023 kl. 10:06 skrev Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>:
> On 3/20/23 13:03, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> > Sorry, I vote PRESENT on 8935
>
>
> You must explicitly "change" your vote.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeep
I change my vote to PRESENT on 8935
On Monday, March 20, 2023, Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 3/20/23 13:03, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> > Sorry, I vote PRESENT on 8935
>
>
> You must explicitly "change" your vote.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
On 1/1/23 20:07, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2023 at 6:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1/1/23 19:33, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
>>> 8879~ Janet 2.0 Mason's Stone buff
>>> AGAINS
On Sun, Jan 1, 2023 at 6:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 1/1/23 19:33, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> > 8879~ Janet 2.0 Mason's Stone buff
> > AGAINST
> >
> >
>
> Could I ask what you think might be a reasonable e
On 10/23/22 19:31, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> My first thought is that the Recursion Stone protecting itself every
> month probably isn't interesting gameplay.
Good note, I'll look at it.
> My second thought is that Stones are the sort of thing that only really
> works when the rest of
On Sun, 2022-10-23 at 19:53 +, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 10/23/22 14:30, ziproot via agora-business wrote:
> > I vote AGAINST (birds are no longer in the game and should not be
> > referenced if we're updating stones, and the power stone has been
> > confirmed via CFJs 3396 and 3997
> I believe these votes don't count? The voting period ended because quorum was
> met and a week had passed since distribution. (Note G. did vote against
> everything).
>
> --
> secretsnail
Oh well, don't count them then. I'm too lazy and confused to check the
deadlines.
--
juan
On 6/21/22 17:16, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/21/2022 10:34 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Tue, 2022-06-21 at 08:19 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> I don't agree with this interpretation. There are quite a few examples of
>>> using "wrong" nickna
On 6/21/2022 10:34 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-06-21 at 08:19 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
>> I don't agree with this interpretation. There are quite a few examples of
>> using "wrong" nicknames if the person is clear from context (it's ancient
>> so I
On Tue, 2022-06-21 at 08:19 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> I don't agree with this interpretation. There are quite a few examples of
> using "wrong" nicknames if the person is clear from context (it's ancient
> so I'm not citing this as strict precedent, but CFJ 1361 is an exampl
On 6/17/22 14:46, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> * Grant a blot to a specified person (or emself if no one is
> specified). When a player does so, eir Charge is increased by
> 1.
>
> * Grant an Iridium Star to a specified person (or emself if no
>
On 3/27/22 19:04, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> An alternative idea, which I had more recently: a contract can specify
> itself as an economic contract, a player can join at most one economic
> contract at a time, and the three economic contracts with the most
> members are granted a regular
On 3/20/2022 6:58 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 3/20/22 20:53, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Mon, 2022-03-21 at 01:48 +, nix via agora-business wrote:
>>> On 3/20/22 05:03, Aspen via agora-official wrote:
ID Author(s) AITitle
On 3/20/22 20:53, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-03-21 at 01:48 +, nix via agora-business wrote:
>> On 3/20/22 05:03, Aspen via agora-official wrote:
>>> ID Author(s) AITitle
>>> --
On Tue, 2021-10-05 at 14:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 10/5/2021 2:18 PM, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> > One other thing to note is that golfed rule text can be quite hard to
> > read and understand, which might not be great for easing new players
> > into the game; b
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 1:34 PM Aspen via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 7:09 PM Sarah S. via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I vote as follows
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:54 AM Aspen via agora-official <
>
On 6/18/21 12:39 AM, Rebecca Lee via agora-discussion wrote:
> Me too
NttPF
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 01:26:32PM -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On 1/29/2021 5:55 AM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 1/29/21 7:52 AM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> The issue is a white ribbon scam. The pet argument (that your pet can
> >> consent to play a gam
On 1/29/2021 5:55 AM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 1/29/21 7:52 AM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
>> The issue is a white ribbon scam. The pet argument (that your pet can
>> consent to play a game with you) allows a single individual to generate
>> a new white ribbon, which is extremely
On 1/29/21 7:52 AM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> The issue is a white ribbon scam. The pet argument (that your pet can
> consent to play a game with you) allows a single individual to generate
> a new white ribbon, which is extremely valuable. Working with other
> Agorans means you have to neg
On 1/28/21 11:44 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> 8535* Aris, nix, G., Gaelan 3.0 We the People
>> PRESENT due to a potential issue with persons including pets that you
>> could argue can choose to play with you as a group. I'm debating AGAINST
> ...
>> --
>> nix
> I'm not s
On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 3:28 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On 1/3/21 6:26 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> > If you're going to vote against this, it's IMO your responsibility to
> > make sure this gets cleaned up reasonably soon. Dictatorships are, by
> > tradition, te
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 05:41:35PM +, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> On 11/12/20 11:19 AM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
> > (I'm not sure where "over 1000" coins comes from; I get 50 + 4 * (5
> > boatlods + 50) = 330 in a month with 4 weeks. But that's still a lot.)
> 50 boatloads
On 8/2/20 6:35 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 3:29 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business
> wrote:
>> I vote as follows:
>>
>>> 8478*^ Jason, nix, G. 3.0 another talismans fix
>> FOR
>>
>>
>>> 8479j^ nix, Aris, PSS, ATMunn 1.7 Competitive Finger
On Sunday, July 12, 2020 11:23:34 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> [Did I get this remotely right? I can't tell what the role your
> assessment order played in this.]
If I remember correctly, at the time assessment order directly determined
quorum and it would've failed quorum w
On 7/17/2020 12:34 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
On 7/12/2020 11:24 PM, N. S. via agora-business wrote:
8476e^ ATMunn, [1] 1.0 Contract charities
AGAINST
R. Lee, I would kindly ask you to withdraw this vote. If you do so, I
can get an orange ribbon for this proposal a
On 7/12/2020 10:13 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-07-12 at 21:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> Here are the votes withdrawals, 2 seconds before the voting period
>> ended:
>
> Did I really cut it that close? My usual aim for "before the thing
> happen
On Sun, 2020-07-12 at 21:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Here are the votes withdrawals, 2 seconds before the voting period
> ended:
Did I really cut it that close? My usual aim for "before the thing
happens" timing scams is at least 2 minutes, to allow for potential
email dela
On 7/12/2020 9:02 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Sunday, July 12, 2020 10:09 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>>
>> Scam, dunno details, nch is listed as conspirator, it involved Rule 2492?
>> 2017-06-28 Quazie +K
>
> Scam where I as As
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, July 12, 2020 10:09 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Scam, dunno details, nch is listed as conspirator, it involved Rule 2492?
> 2017-06-28 Quazie +K
Scam where I as Assessor manipulated the assessment order in order to give
ais523 and
On 7/12/2020 7:40 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
>> For the most part, this has turned into "when there's enough player
>> turnover that a majority don't have black ribbons, pass an AI-1 proposal".
>> So most defense for such proposals has been token at best (e.g. in the
>> current r
For the most part, this has turned into "when there's enough player
turnover that a majority don't have black ribbons, pass an AI-1 proposal".
So most defense for such proposals has been token at best (e.g. in the
current rules I doubt anyone thinks it's worth spending Extra Votes to
stop it).
On 7/12/2020 2:10 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-07-12 at 13:32 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> That presumes that I think bribery proposals are legitimate. I don't,
>> but if the rules explicitly make it so there's no legitimate way to
>> do something one is clearly intende
On Sun, 2020-07-12 at 13:32 -0700, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> That presumes that I think bribery proposals are legitimate. I don't,
> but if the rules explicitly make it so there's no legitimate way to
> do something one is clearly intended to do, I suppose that makes it
> legitima
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 1:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 7/12/2020 1:13 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> > I vote as follows:
> >
> >> ID Author(s)AITitle
> >>
> -
On 6/30/20 8:03 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 6/30/20 9:02 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 6/30/20 7:57 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/30/20 8:52 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
On 6/30/20 5:47 A
On 6/30/20 9:02 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/30/20 7:57 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> On 6/30/20 8:52 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> On 6/30/20 5:47 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
>>> wrote:
AGAINST (I'd be
On 6/30/20 7:57 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 6/30/20 8:52 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 6/30/20 5:47 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
>> wrote:
>>> AGAINST (I'd be supportive of this if it didn't get rid of Certifiable
>>> P
On 6/30/20 8:52 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/30/20 5:47 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
> wrote:
>> AGAINST (I'd be supportive of this if it didn't get rid of Certifiable
>> Patches)
>
> Is the 2+X support mechanism not a sufficient replacement? Why not?
>
N
oh gosh no
On 6/8/2020 9:05 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:56 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business
wrote:
[Juggling three distributions in my mind at once pls send help]
My official efficiency is rapidly increasing. Thoughts on the idea of
moving to da
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:07 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 3:34 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
> agora-business wrote:
> >
> > FOR; Aris, I think there is an error here because the Adoption index
> > is listed diff
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 2:12 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/7/2020 8:55 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Just conceptually switches could be replaced with variables. Most of our
> > player-base probably has a passing understanding of co
Aris, I for one really appreciate what you've done for Agora. I admire
the time and effort you have put into the game over the years. I, too,
thought you were much older than you are just due to your maturity. I've
thought of you as a staple of the community since I joined. Serious
congrats on
On 2020-06-07 13:02, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
(1) use natural switches - current solution, bad metaphor;
(2) use currencies - I think that's a bad fit, we don't really want to
treat these quantities as tradable objects and we want to include negative
karma, so with an even "worse"
> (1) use natural switches - current solution, bad metaphor;
>
> (2) use currencies - I think that's a bad fit, we don't really want to
> treat these quantities as tradable objects and we want to include negative
> karma, so with an even "worse" metaphor IMO;
>
> (3) invent something new in paralle
On 6/7/2020 9:00 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> On 6/7/2020 8:45 AM, Rebecca via
agora-discussion wrote:>>> How about we just write it out? "Karma is an
integer value assigned to>> persons and Agora and tracked by the Herald in
eir weekly report, which>> self-ratifies. Karma defaults to zero."
Just one
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 11:05:54 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 6/7/2020 8:55 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Just conceptually switches could be replaced with variables. Most of our
> > player-base probably has a passing understanding of computer variables,
> > and
>
On 6/7/2020 8:55 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> Just conceptually switches could be replaced with variables. Most of our
> player-base probably has a passing understanding of computer variables, and
> they fairly intuitively branch out into booleans, lists, integers and others.
>
Ok, j
On 6/7/2020 8:45 AM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:
>> How about we just write it out? "Karma is an integer value assigned to
> persons and Agora and tracked by the Herald in eir weekly report, which
> self-ratifies. Karma defaults to zero."
> Compare to current rules text "Karma is a person
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 10:45:03 AM CDT Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:40 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
>
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > On 6/7/2020 8:25 AM, nch wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 7, 2020 9:03:32 AM CDT Rebecca wrote:
> > >> On Sun,
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 10:39:38 AM CDT you wrote:
> On 6/7/2020 8:25 AM, nch wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 7, 2020 9:03:32 AM CDT Rebecca wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 11:44 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>> On 6/7/2020 1:00 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> I personally greatly prefer Referendum (and voted f
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 11:40 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
>
> On 6/7/2020 8:25 AM, nch wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 7, 2020 9:03:32 AM CDT Rebecca wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 11:44 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>> On 6/7/2020 1:00 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> I personally greatly pref
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:40 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/7/2020 8:25 AM, nch wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 7, 2020 9:03:32 AM CDT Rebecca wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 11:44 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>> On 6/7/2020 1:00 AM, Rebecca wrote:
On 6/7/2020 8:25 AM, nch wrote:
> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 9:03:32 AM CDT Rebecca wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 11:44 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2020 1:00 AM, Rebecca wrote:
I personally greatly prefer Referendum (and voted for it) because it's
intuitiuve. The rules need less in
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 11:37 AM nch via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 10:24:20 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > On 6/7/2020 8:05 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > On 6/7/20 10:29 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote:
> > >> One partial
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 10:24:20 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 6/7/2020 8:05 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 6/7/20 10:29 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> One partial fix that can be implemented right now, without any ruleset
> >> changes, wou
On 6/7/2020 8:05 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/7/20 10:29 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote:
>> One partial fix that can be implemented right now, without any ruleset
>> changes, would be a change in the standard method for AGAINST votes aimed at
>> denying side effe
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 9:03:32 AM CDT Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 11:44 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
>
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > On 6/7/2020 1:00 AM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > I personally greatly prefer Referendum (and
1 - 100 of 600 matches
Mail list logo
