DIS: Re: BUS: I register
Aris wrote: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Rebecca via agora-business > wrote: > > > I, R. Lee, do register > > > > Welcome back! I cause R. Lee to receive a Welcome Package. Err. I find no evidence that R. Lee deregistered since e was last here, so I think this fails. E isn't even a zombie yet... -twg
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3794 Assigned to Alexis
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 14:48, Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > The below CFJ is 3794. I assign it to Alexis. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3794 Non-CoE: This appears to be missing the arguments from https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg35443.html and https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg48914.html -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3794 Assigned to Alexis
On 1/25/2020 11:50 AM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 14:48, Kerim Aydin via agora-official < > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> The below CFJ is 3794. I assign it to Alexis. >> >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3794 > > > Non-CoE: This appears to be missing the arguments from > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg35443.html > and > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg48914.html > > -Alexis > Thanks! will add to the case log.
DIS: Re: BUS: [attn: ADoP] Whither the Agoran economy?
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 11:29, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I wrote: > > I intend, with 2 days' notice, to temporarily deputise for the ADoP to > > end the uncontested election for Treasuror, thereby installing myself. > > Having given notice, I do so. > > I award myself an Emerald Ribbon. > > Cyan Glitter: I earn 8 coins. > > -twg > I believe this fails as the current glitter value for cyan is 7. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 13:41, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 1/20/2020 1:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > > ...nd, maybe, if it please m'lud, to request that at least the > > degree intent, if not also the separate title, be delayed for a further, > > oh, say, four to five days? For purely self-serving reasons, I admit. > > Since this is "undergoing peer-review", I won't make any awards until you > say either "I'm happy with the published draft" or "here's a new draft". > Note that the Herald may change hands in the meantime. > > >> Oh, and on peer-review: having read it, I can think of no edits. This > is a > >> gem. Well done. > > > > Not even to suggest pointing out the Town Fountain and Royal Parade in > > the part where I talk about honouring interesting/memorable scams? I'm > > kicking myself for forgetting to mention them, as basically the most > > prominent memorials of gameplay past. Ah well. > > Your writing focused on "recent scams", and of course the style of gameplay > preferred is a function of current and not past players, it didn't even > occur to me that it was missing! > > That said, this reminded me of pers. comm/memory that supports your case. > For both the Town Fountain and the Royal Parade, the scam perpetrator > (myself and Alexis respectively), a while after each scam (a year or so > after IIRC), submitted proposals to repeal said rules. The proposals > failed, and I remember being told in no uncertain terms (by a couple of the > most fervent anti-scammers on the actual scam, no less) that it was part of > our history now and should stay. Good evidence that people might get > annoyed > in the heat of the moment, but after the dust and emotions have settled > it's > an accepted and appreciated part of the game. > > -G. > Two questions: First, twg, are you satisfied with the draft as it is? There do not seem to have been any substantive comments from peer review so I believe we could proceed with the award soon. Second, does anyone else have any opinion as the appropriateness of which degree to award? It seems that the agruments so far can be summarized as follows: A.N.: ~ This is most suitable by default (Alexis) J.N.: + This thesis relates to the practice of law (Alexis) ~ Expanding the scope of the degree to relate to the practice of law is possible but it's not the current scope (G.) - Most theses are about legal/historical matters; this is public policy and not rule intepretation (Aris) - The degree was originally intended only for draft judgments, which this is not (Aris, twg) B.N.: ~ A nonspecialized degree (such as a bachelor's?) might be appropriate (Aris) ~ twg should choose between J.N. and B.N., with no reasoning specified as for why B.N. and not another degree (G.) - The thesis is insufficiently academic or scholarly in character to be awarded a B.N. In particular, while the consensus seems to be against J.N. being appropriate, only three people have expressed an opinion between B.N and A.N., with two in favour of B.N. but without any reasoning. Thus, if anyone feels strongly that J.N. is appropriate who has not already voiced this, or if anyone has any other arguments or opinions between A.N. and B.N., I would appreciate hearing them. If I do not, I will likely make intents for both B.N. and A.N. and resolve the stronger one. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
On 1/25/2020 12:23 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > if anyone has any other arguments or opinions between A.N. and B.N., I > would appreciate hearing them. If I do not, I will likely make intents for > both B.N. and A.N. and resolve the stronger one. I've seen too few comparisons between B.N. and A.N. to opine, personally. B.N. is oldest - I'm trying to remember if we added A.N. when you did yours Alexis, because you already had a B.N.? So the A.N. was like a "minor" for someone who had B.N. already? Though that doesn't fit the pattern for my degree (I just vaguely recall some sort of conversation like that, I don't truly remember why we introduced the A.N. given that B.N.'s were never huge effort). -G.
DIS: [Attn: Rulekeepor] Annotations for CFJ 3783
I suggest the following annotations based on CFJ 3783: For rule 2143: "It is not possible to win an election after it has ended." For rule 2602, if all amendment proposals fail: "A player cannot use this rule to earn coins for a ribbon after e has earned another ribbon, regardless of the latter's type or whether e had it already." -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 15:36, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 1/25/2020 12:23 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > if anyone has any other arguments or opinions between A.N. and B.N., I > > would appreciate hearing them. If I do not, I will likely make intents > for > > both B.N. and A.N. and resolve the stronger one. > > I've seen too few comparisons between B.N. and A.N. to opine, personally. > B.N. is oldest - I'm trying to remember if we added A.N. when you did yours > Alexis, because you already had a B.N.? So the A.N. was like a "minor" for > someone who had B.N. already? Though that doesn't fit the pattern for my > degree (I just vaguely recall some sort of conversation like that, I don't > truly remember why we introduced the A.N. given that B.N.'s were never huge > effort). > > -G. > It predates my registration by years: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg00046.html It looks like you were the first honoree: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08113.html I also was reminded while researching this that my A.N. was awarded for a judgment (possibly the first ever such thesis?). Ah, looks like I missed out on J.N. then ;) -Alexis
Re: DIS: Theses in the Agoran Context: A Query
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > When we last had a specific criteria (a loong time ago) it looked like this > (from 2003): > > The Degree of Associate of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least > 150 words. A Candidate who already holds an AN Degree receives > a credit of 100 words towards the Thesis requirement for any > higher Degree, unless the Candidate also holds a BN Degree. > Actually, looks like Associate of Nomic long predates even that. ;) It looks like your A.N. thesis was submitted explicitly for A.N. without any further discussion of the degree: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg27579.html. Mine was awarded because it wasn't clear if my thesis was M.N. level and I already have B.N. So it looks like you're the leading expert on the modern distinction between A.N. and B.N.!
Re: DIS: Theses in the Agoran Context: A Query
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 16:42, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> When we last had a specific criteria (a loong time ago) it looked like >> this >> (from 2003): >> >> The Degree of Associate of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least >> 150 words. A Candidate who already holds an AN Degree receives >> a credit of 100 words towards the Thesis requirement for any >> higher Degree, unless the Candidate also holds a BN Degree. >> > > Actually, looks like Associate of Nomic long predates even that. ;) > > It looks like your A.N. thesis was submitted explicitly for A.N. without > any further discussion of the degree: > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg27579.html. > Mine was awarded because it wasn't clear if my thesis was M.N. level and I > already have B.N. > > So it looks like you're the leading expert on the modern distinction > between A.N. and B.N.! > Unrelated: anyone happen to know what D.N.Sci. is for? Alexis
Re: DIS: Theses in the Agoran Context: A Query
On 1/25/2020 1:46 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 16:42, Alexis Hunt wrote: > >> On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < >> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >>> When we last had a specific criteria (a loong time ago) it looked like >>> this >>> (from 2003): >>> >>> The Degree of Associate of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least >>> 150 words. A Candidate who already holds an AN Degree receives >>> a credit of 100 words towards the Thesis requirement for any >>> higher Degree, unless the Candidate also holds a BN Degree. >>> >> >> Actually, looks like Associate of Nomic long predates even that. ;) >> >> It looks like your A.N. thesis was submitted explicitly for A.N. without >> any further discussion of the degree: >> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg27579.html. >> Mine was awarded because it wasn't clear if my thesis was M.N. level and I >> already have B.N. >> >> So it looks like you're the leading expert on the modern distinction >> between A.N. and B.N.! >> > > Unrelated: anyone happen to know what D.N.Sci. is for? > > Alexis Looks like I wrote the Proposal 4865 that added it. Proposal context: in 2005-2006 we had a full complicated University system that had full faculty positions and other University stuff. We got tired of that, and P4865 (Aug 2006) replaced it with something simpler like we've got now. But looks like I added a new degree, too. I can't find any discussion at all on the proposal itself and I totally forgot I'd written it until now. In more recent years, I'd thought about theses that had charts and graphs and analysis - similar to what Jason Cobb did recently for eir Masters, complete with methods and code provided: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-October/041565.html (the only reason this was Masters and not Ph.D. Sci was because it was Jason Cobb's first thesis, and we agreed that Ph.D. should follow the former standard of reflecting previous academic work as well as the current thesis). As another example, if I ever fill in the judicial archives, I was thinking about writing one that plotted frequency of CFJs over time or something like that. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
Alexis wrote: > Two questions: > > First, twg, are you satisfied with the draft as it is? There do not seem to > have been any substantive comments from peer review so I believe we could > proceed with the award soon. Yes, a few days ago I mentioned I was thinking of making some minor additions, but tbh I think it stands well enough on its own. And I like the sense of authenticity lent by the whole thing having been written in a single draft. By all means proceed with the proceedings. -twg
DIS: [Proto-Proposals] The beginnings of reform
This proto marks the beginning of my quests for reform in two large
areas of the game, administrative discretion and ratification, as
discussed previously. I may choose to write up a plan at some point
and submit it as a thesis, but I may just fly by the seat of my pants.
Proposal: Administrative Discretion. I. Statutory Instrumentation (AI=3)
{{{
[This first proposal is a reform to the core rules defining what rules
are, with an aim to better supporting subordinate legal documents. The
intent is to enact very little change to the game as it is actually
played, and to operate mostly in the realm of supporting definitions.]
If this proposal has had any provision vetoed, then the entire
proposal has no effect.
In this proposal, "I->S" is to amend a rule within the scope specified
by replacing each instance of "an Instrument" with "a statute", and
each other instance of "Instrument" with "statute". This is not a
case-sensitive match, however, if the text being replaced has a
leading capital, then so does the replacement.
Enact a new power-3.01 rule entitled "Statutory Instrumentation
Simultaneity", reading "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
proposal which enacted this rule CAN effect multiple rule changes,
which it could otherwise effect individually, simultaneously. When it
attempts to do so, if any single rule change it attempts is
INEFFECTIVE, then so is the entire attempt." [This proposes to make
multiple interlocking amendments to critical rules defining rules and
the interactions between themselves. This mitigates a real risk that,
during a series of sequential changes, the rules would be in a
nonsensical or otherwise broken state. I considered trying to put in a
special clause preserving the effect of the current rules on rule
changes for the duration of the proposal, but that wouldn't preclude
the possibility of some other aspect of the game, such as asset
holdings, doing something weird in the in-between state. And only a
persistent rule could elegantly paper over that small weird gap in
time. I think simultaneity is the better choice.]
Set the power of all non-rule entities, other than this proposal, to
0. [This is an important safety as the change to the definition of a
rule would potentially cause old non-rule instruments to become rules.
Best not to consider that.]
Apply the following rule changes simultaneously:
{{
Amend Rule 1688 (Power) by replacing "An Instrument is an entity with
positive Power." with "A statute is a document with positive Power."
Apply I->S throughout the remainder of the rule.
Amend rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing "set or
modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with power
greater than its own. A 'substantive' aspect of an instrument is any
aspect that affects the instrument's operation." with "set or modify
any other substantive aspect of an instrument with power greater than
its own except that, for greater certainty, the provisions of a rule
with respect to what actions are and are not possible apply even to
higher-powered ephemeral statutes except to the extent that they are
overridden in accordance with other rules." and applying I->S
throughout the rest of the rule.
[I don't want to consider what it would mean if PCM prevents rules
from interfering with higher-powered proposal. Let's pretend this is
just clarifying something super obvious to everyone.]
Apply I->S throughout Rule 105 (Rule Changes).
Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Instruments" reading:
{
An instrument is a type of document, either ephemeral or enduring,
that is defined as such by a body of law. An instrument's text, where
otherwise permitted, can be amended from time to time.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an instrument other than a
statute CANNOT become binding on a person without eir willful consent,
however, consent can be given by implication. In particular,
consenting to be bound to an instrument can imply consent to be bound
by amendments to it and consent to be bound by other instruments.
}
Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Bodies of Law" reading:
{
A body of law is a collection of related instruments and bodies of law
whose effects are collective and possibly interdependent, and which is
defined as such by a body of law. The statutes of Agora form a body of
law with unlimited scope. All other bodies of law are defined by a
different body of law, in such a way as to be able to trace their
origins back to the statutes of Agora. Two or more bodies of law may
jointly define another body of law, but only each of them clearly
expresses the intent to participate in a joint definition with each of
the others. Otherwise, the definitions are separate, distinct, and
unrelated.
A body of law is governed by all bodies of law which, directly or
indirectly, participate in its definition, as well as any body of law
specified as governing it by any of its governing law. A body of law
is subordinate to the law that governs it, and a body of law i
DIS: [CFJ] Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8280-8286
H. Arbitor: I’d just like to make sure this CFJ gets processed—I forgot to tag
the subject line, so it may have slipped through the cracks.
Gaelan
> On Jan 19, 2020, at 8:42 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> If there exists a rule 2604, then I perform the following actions: { [This
> conditional is a safeguard against That One Rule becoming defined before rule
> 2604 passes, in the event of some Assessorial mishap]
>
> I declare That One Rule to be rule 1030.
>
> I award myself the patent title of “The Powerless.”
>
> CFJ: Gaelan has the patent title “The Powerless.”
>
> }
>
> Arguments: {
> Here’s a summary of my view on the issue. This question has been debated at
> length in the thread from my original proposal, which the H. Judge may want
> to take a look at.
>
> The central issue here is described in a 1996 thesis by Andre, reproduced in
> full in Appendix A. The jist is this: Generally, precedence between Agoran
> rules is determined by Rule 1030, which sets out the power system we know and
> tolerate. In particular, it purports to makes any attempt by a lower-powered
> rule to claim precedence over a higher-powered rule INEFFECTIVE. However,
> what happens if a lower-powered rule claims precedence over rule 1030? Both
> rules claim precedence over the other, and there’s no inherent reason to
> prefer one, other than Rule 1030 itself.
>
> Andre proposed a solution to the issue, which remains, sans some changes in
> wording, as the last paragraph of rule 1030/13: {
> No change to the ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to
> directly claim precedence over this Rule as a means of determining
> precedence. This applies to changes by the enactment or amendment
> of a Rule, or of any other form. This Rule takes precedence over
> any Rule that would permit such a change to the ruleset.
> }
>
> I proposed what is now Rule 2604/0, which appears to circumvent that clause
> of rule 1030: {
> This rule takes precedence over That One Rule, provisions of That One
> Rule
> notwithstanding. That One Rule is defined as the rule that Gaelan has
> most
> recently declared, by announcement, to be That One Rule.
>
> Additionally, this rule takes precedence over all rules other than Rule
> 1030,
> provisions of That One Rule notwithstanding.
>
> Gaelan CAN, by announcement, award emself the patent title of “The
> Powerless”.
> }
>
> At the time of the rule’s passage, That One Rule was undefined, and therefore
> Rule 1030 would have no reason to prevent 2604’s passage. Soon afterward,
> however, came the big reveal: That One Rule is 1030! It’s been tricked! Now
> that rule 2604 is in the ruleset and claiming precedence over 1030, we’ve
> reached Andre’s paradox: two rules claim precedence over each other, and
> there’s no neutral third-party telling us which to prefer.
>
> It’s worth considering whether or not my declaration of That One Rule
> constitutes a “change to the ruleset… by the enactment or amendment of a
> Rule, or of any other form” (1030/13). I find this interpretation unlikely:
> Agora has plenty of examples of gamestate that effect the functioning of the
> rules, but aren’t part of the ruleset. For instance, nobody would argue that
> a person registering is a change to the ruleset, even though it grants the
> person new rights and obligations under the rules.
>
> So, do I have the patent title? Rule 1030 would claim that I don’t: Rule
> 649/41 claims that "Awarding or revoking a Patent Title is secured at power
> 1.” Of course, Rule 2604 claims otherwise. With no mechanism to decide
> between the two, I believe this is “logically undecidable as a result of a
> paradox or or other irresovable logical situation” (591/46), and therefore
> PARADOXICAL.
>
> It’s worth noting that in the latest edition of the Ruleset, the H.
> Rulekeepor has placed rule 2604 before rule 1030. One might argue that in a
> natural reading of the rules, an earlier rule would take precedence over a
> later one. This isn’t a particularly strong argument, because Agoran don’t
> typically view the ruleset as an ordered document, but this isn’t a typical
> sitauation.
> }
>
> APPENDIX A:
>> A case of problematic precedence
>>
>> In this thesis I will present a paradox in the precedence rules for a Nomic
>> game. One example of these is of course known to us all: Suppose the
>> following rules would exist:
>>
>> 4000 The Virus is green. This rule takes precedence over rule 4010.
>> 4010 The Virus is blue. This rule takes precedence over rule 4011.
>> 4011 The Virus is yellow. This rule takes precedence over rule 4000.
>> What colour would the Virus have? Rule 4000 takes precedence over 4010, 4010
>> over 4011 and 4011 over 4000. So all have another rule of higher precedence
>> conflicting with it. It's a problem that is known in real-life situations as
>> well: If three vehicles come to a cros
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [CFJ] Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8280-8286
Alexis wrote: > Blatant attempt to sneak something Gaelan missed: I CFJ on "Gaelan > CAN, by announcement, award emself the patent title of 'The > Powerless'.", requesting linked assignment with the CFJ upthread. your thought being that the award can be made repeatedly? -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [CFJ] Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8280-8286
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 21:03, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Alexis wrote: > > Blatant attempt to sneak something Gaelan missed: I CFJ on "Gaelan > > CAN, by announcement, award emself the patent title of 'The > > Powerless'.", requesting linked assignment with the CFJ upthread. > > your thought being that the award can be made repeatedly? > > -twg > I don't see why it couldn't be.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3788 Assigned to Jason Cobb
On 1/25/20 9:55 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > The below CFJ is 3788. I assign it to Jason Cobb. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3788 > > === CFJ 3788 === > > If the two documents quoted above were ratified, the first one > would have the effect of modifying the historical record twice and > the publicity switches of the relevant fora twice, in the manner > stated as interpretation a above. > > == Oooh, this seems like a fun one to judge, if not slightly above my pay grade. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3797 Assigned to Falsifian
On 1/25/20 10:04 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > The below CFJ is 3797. I assign it to Falsifian. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3797 > > === CFJ 3797 === > > Coming into existence is a regulated action. > > == One more gratuitous argument: If the Rules do (or ever have) regulate coming into existence, it might make it weird for people who came into existence after Agora did (like me). I believe that whether or not Agora thinks that I exist is not IRRELEVANT, and, since this CFJ might affect that, this CFJ should not be judged IRRELEVANT. This is probably also an argument for FALSE, given the "bests interests of the game" test. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [Proto-Proposals] The beginnings of reform
On 1/25/20 8:32 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote:
> Amend Rule 2125 (Regulated Actions) to read:
> {
> An action is regulated by a body of law if (1) its performance is
> limited, allowed, enabled, or permitted by that body of law; (2) that
> body of law describes the circumstances under which it would succeed
> or fail; or (3) it would, as part of its effect, modify information
> for which some person bound by that body of law is required, by that
> body of law, to be a recordkeepor.
>
> If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that doing so
> is within its scope, that body of law prevents the action from being
> performed except as described within it, including by limiting the
> methods to perform that action to those specified within it. A body of
> law does not proscribed any action which it does not regulate.
> }
>
> [I'm sad about losing the SHALL NOT there. Violating that would surely
> have been one of the great Agoran crimes, along with failing to
> carefully consider the consequences of not reading the ruleset during
> RtRW.]
This came up a while back in CFJ 3737. I asked whether a contract
prohibiting an action (in that case, breathing) caused that action to
become a Regulated Action. The H. Judge Trigon issued a judgement, and
omd then Pointed eir Finger at Trigon for "interpreting the Rules so as
to proscribe unregulated actions". Sadly, the Finger-point went unresolved.
--
Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Shortening of name
Thank you! Thank you! You have no idea how much easier this makes to fit in the authors on a proposal distribution. (Please, no one respond by being contrary and expanding their Agoran name.) -Aris On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 7:28 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > [Not sure if this needs to go to BUS, but whatever.] > > I request that my Agoran nickname be shortened to "Jason", because that > should be completely unambiguous and is half the length. > > My signature will continue to show "Jason Cobb" for the time being > because I want to keep that for non-Agora stuff and am too lazy to > figure out if I can change it per recipient. > > -- > Jason Cobb > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Shortening of name
On 1/25/20 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > Thank you! Thank you! You have no idea how much easier this makes to fit in > the authors on a proposal distribution. > > (Please, no one respond by being contrary and expanding their Agoran name.) > > -Aris That was a stronger reaction than I was expecting :). -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Shortening of name
My Agoran name shall be now Gaela+n, where “a+” represents the letter a repeated n times, where n is one more than the maximum number that would fit in whatever table the name is included in. (Kidding, of course) Gaelan > On Jan 25, 2020, at 7:31 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Thank you! Thank you! You have no idea how much easier this makes to fit in > the authors on a proposal distribution. > > (Please, no one respond by being contrary and expanding their Agoran name.) > > -Aris > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 7:28 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> [Not sure if this needs to go to BUS, but whatever.] >> >> I request that my Agoran nickname be shortened to "Jason", because that >> should be completely unambiguous and is half the length. >> >> My signature will continue to show "Jason Cobb" for the time being >> because I want to keep that for non-Agora stuff and am too lazy to >> figure out if I can change it per recipient. >> >> -- >> Jason Cobb >> >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Shortening of name
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 23:38, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > My Agoran name shall be now Gaela+n, where “a+” represents the letter a > repeated n times, where n is one more than the maximum number that would > fit in whatever table the name is included in. > > (Kidding, of course) > > Gaelaan > I think you forgot exactly 63 as.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Shortening of name
On 1/25/2020 7:31 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > Thank you! Thank you! You have no idea how much easier this makes to fit in > the authors on a proposal distribution. > > (Please, no one respond by being contrary and expanding their Agoran name.) > > -Aris *coughs in Publius Scribonius Scholasticus*
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Shortening of name
My Agoran name is now R. "rythwjkejhwyetrhrjkaigiuhrdafkt4wiq5yrw9jgnfnvmmKAKAJJ" Lee On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 4:12 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 1/25/2020 7:31 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > Thank you! Thank you! You have no idea how much easier this makes to fit > in > > the authors on a proposal distribution. > > > > (Please, no one respond by being contrary and expanding their Agoran > name.) > > > > -Aris > > *coughs in Publius Scribonius Scholasticus* > > -- >From R. Lee
