Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

[Charles Walker]

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:59, James Cook  wrote:
> Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> 3726 a couple of times.

Thanks for an interesting judgement--a good way for me to get back
into the game. My instinct was that 3726 is TRUE, along the line of
argument that you suggested in the initial discussion, but you seem to
have found good reasons why the past is part of the gamestate.

> (There may be best-interests-of-the-game arguments going the other way,
> e.g. maybe it's easier to untangle some situations if ratification isn't
> mucking around with the past. But 7A and 7B still apply.)

R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):

- Pragmatism. It is impossible to amend the past, so why pretend
otherwise via legal fiction?
- It is simpler and cleaner to amend the gamestate at a single point
in time (the present) than amend all times t, P<=t<=T, where P is the
publication of the ratified document and T is the time of
ratification.

DIS: Re: BUS: Take 6

[Charles Walker]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 03:20, James Cook  wrote:
>
> Welcome! I've added you as "Walker" to the directory; let me know if
> you prefer to be referred to some other way.
>
> I grant a welcome package to Walker.

Thanks!

--
Walker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Temporary Deputy-ADoP] Initiation of Election for Prime Minister

[Charles Walker]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 02:09, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> [Also:  good to see you in the game again Walker, and welcome Jason Cobb!]

Thanks G., and good to see you're still around!

-- 
Walker

Re: DIS: Plot twist: new proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

[Charles Walker]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 03:27, James Cook  wrote:
> Having established that, here is the hypothetical timeline:
>
> * D. Margaux publishes correct Astronomor and Clork reports.
> * omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
>   information in those reports.
> * D. Margaux authorizes Aris to act on eir behalf for the investigation.
> * Aris attempts to impose the Cold Hand of Justice, but the attempt is
>   INEFFECTIVE because D. Margaux did not violate the rules.
>
> In this hypothetical timeline, the appropriate judgement of CFJ 3726
> would be FALSE, since Aris's attempted imposition was INEFFECTIVE, and
> the appropriate judgement of CFJ 3727 would be FALSE as well, since D.
> Margaux did not gain any blots after the 2019-05-20 referee report,
> which self-ratified before CFJ 3727 was called.

The SHALL NOT in R2143 is a bit broken by this, as it implies a
statute of limitations of only one week, assuming no one CoEs/CFJs the
report. Not sure if that should be fixed by amending R2143 or if
someone will now propose amending ratification anyway.

-- 
Walker

DIS: Re: BUS: Right Action

[Charles Walker]

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 04:13, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> I pay 4 coins to Walker.

Thanks, o.

-- 
Walker

DIS: Re: BUS: judicial list

[Charles Walker]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 21:32, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
> The judicial list (interested judges) I'm working from is:
>
> D. Margaux, G., Murphy, Trigon, Falsifian, V.J. Rada
>
> Any changes/additions, or did I miss anyone?
>
> Thinking of doing away with the "weekend court" distinction... a bit
> too much bookkeeping for something that's not much used...

I was actually thinking of trying the weekend court as a way of
committing to the game more gradually. Either way I won't have much
time until July, so I'll check back in at that point.

-- 
Walker

Re: DIS: report reward fixes

[Charles Walker]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 23:48, D. Margaux  wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:39 PM omd  wrote:
> > Perhaps simplify to something like:
> >
> >   * Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report for the first
> > time in a given week or month (resp.): 5 coins.
> >
> > Though I suppose my wording is ambiguous as to whether you can claim
> > the reward if a previous officeholder published the office's report in
> > the same week/month.
>
>
> To eliminate ambiguity, what about:
>
> Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report, provided that no such
> report had been published previously in that week (if the reward is claimed
> for a weekly report) or in that month (if the reward is claimed for a
> monthly report).

How about:

Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report, provided that no such
report had been published previously in that week or month,
respectively.

-- 
Walker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Some one help me in starting to play i want to join

[Charles Walker]

On 13 October 2015 at 00:38, omd  wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> A blank message with a subject line action hasn't been tried before,
>> I think.
>
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-April/006296.html
> :)

Do you know the relevant CFJ number?

DIS: Re: BUS: Future of Agora

[Charles Walker]

On 19 June 2016 at 23:13, omd  wrote:
> It’s not that I want it to be over.  My interest, presumably like many other
> players’, has waxed and waned over the years, and after such a long hiatus I
> for one would probably be pretty active if there were a new spurt of
> activity.  If some of the usual cadre of longtime players showed up, and we
> could somehow recruit a bunch of new players, Agora could rise again.

Belatedly joining this thread. I'm just starting a long university
vacation and have very little to do until October, so I'm willing to
join in with a new burst of activity. However, I've overcommitted and
dropped out several times in the past, so I'd be wary of taking on too
much responsibility. I don't have the programming skills that many
Agorans do, but I can help with parts two and three of your masterplan
(simplifying/explaining the rules and getting the word out).

> But that’s really the issue - new players.  We’ve never really been
> effective in actively recruiting new players, as long as I’ve been around,
> despite proposals over the years (may I call them slacktivist? :) to solve
> the problem by defining an office responsible for solving it.

I also remember proposing that there be some economic benefit for
recruiting a player. This never produced results either.

> We have to use methods that will let us reach a large audience of
> potentially interested people, not just rely on word of mouth, which will
> never work very well in our player count range.  IIRC, at least one of
> Agora’s big bursts came after getting linked on Slashdot.  Today there are
> Reddit and Hacker News, and Agora might well reach the frontpage of an
> appropriate subreddit or of HN, if submitted, but those aren’t sustainable.
> As an alternative, why not go for real Internet ads?  I could pay for a
> Reddit ad campaign, or even Google ads.  Target programmers.  Of course we’d
> need to improve the website first, as I described above.

Happy to chip in a little towards advertising. Perhaps we could set up
a donations page?

I understand that there are certain things about nomic which attract
programmers, but is there not also a certain element of like
recruiting like? I'm sure there are other demographics (law students,
philosophers?) likely to be interested, and Agora would probably
benefit from a little diversification. The web interface is probably a
prerequisite for getting the less technically-inclined involved,
though.

Charles

Re: DIS: Rule Improvements

[Charles Walker]

On 28 June 2016 at 13:50, ais523  wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-06-27 at 17:46 -0500, nichdel wrote:
>> Now that we've discussed the technical improvements to Agora and plans
>> seem to be underway, I thought it'd be worthwhile to talk in more
>> detail about possible changes to the rules, especially since that's an
>> area where more of us can contribute. Here's my thoughts on what could
>> be improved in the current ruleset:
>>
>> 1) Winning
>>
>> I think having an attainable victory condition is really conducive to
>> keeping up activity in the community. Right now there's two unrelated
>> conditions: Ribbons and Trust Tokens. I personally am indifferent to
>> Trust Tokens. I actually quite like Ribbons, but I wonder if (at least
>> until we have more players) we should make it possible to win with
>> only a subset of the ribbons rather than the full collection. As is,
>> some ribbons are unlikely to be obtainable for newer players (u, v,
>> m, and i particularly). If we lowered the threshold to something like
>> 10-or-12/14 newer players would be able to get a victory from 'easy'
>> ribbons such as gray and white while older players would be more apt
>> to pursue the more distinguished ribbons.
> Ribbons are meant to be a difficult, long-term victory condition that
> sits aside other victory conditions.
>
> I don't think we have anything wrong with our current victory
> conditions; rather, I feel that we need more of them. In particular, we
> need a purely economic grindable victory (I know that G. is opposed to
> these, but IMO it's necessary for activity). It also helps to have some
> assorted other victory conditions (you want at least one as a "scam
> relief valve" so that scams don't have to destroy the gamestate to win,
> and various methods of giving players a victory once they amass enough
> political/economic power).
>
> On similar lines, we need a working economy. I've noticed a huge gulf
> in activity between times when we have a working economic system, and
> times when we don't. (In particular, with no economy present, I have
> little incentive to do anything and normally stay inactive.)

I've always been a fan of simple economies, possibly linked into
proposals and offices in some way. If we're looking to maximise
activity then I'd suggest a BlogNomic style reward just for being
around which you can grind out every four days or every week, set at a
relatively high level, and a win/reset, say, every few months. The
system ought to be designed such that the advantage older players have
over new ones isn't discouragingly large at any point in the cycle.

The glossary is a good idea for introducing new players to the rules,
but I'd also suggest a short 'How to Play Agora' guide which gives
someone enough information to start playing immediately. I might type
up a draft on the wiki later.

Re: DIS: Rule Improvements

[Charles Walker]

On 29 June 2016 at 13:33, Charles Walker  wrote:
> The glossary is a good idea for introducing new players to the rules,
> but I'd also suggest a short 'How to Play Agora' guide which gives
> someone enough information to start playing immediately. I might type
> up a draft on the wiki later.

I had a go at that: http://hearthgate.net/agorawiki/How-to-play-Agora

Re: DIS: Rule Improvements

[Charles Walker]

On 1 July 2016 at 03:22, nichdel  wrote:
> I think this is a really nice start, and a much needed document. Now we have
> a central spot to point new players to!

Thanks!

> Speaking of links, do we need to change the rules to allow markdown and
> links
> inside the rules? Do the rules about the text of rules apply to the intended
> rendering or the raw files?

I suggest we keep the formal text of the rules as plaintext, and have
the formatting/links as an informal layer. That way, we can change the
technology without having to amend every rule, and people who don't
want to use the markdown can still make proposals (which is especially
important if we're trying to encourage new players. The markdown isn't
hard to learn, but it could be off-putting). Also, this gives the
Rulekeepor (and others) discretion over which links to put in and
which formatting to use.

> Another thing to consider in this realm: do we continue publishing the rules
> in the two existing formats? It would work, but there's a few other
> potential
> structures to consider:

It makes sense to me to have one format, with contextual information
hidden on other pages. It doesn't seem to be worth the effort to make
our own custom expandable sections, but then again I don't actually
know how much effort it would take.

DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get the ball rolling again

[Charles Walker]

On 11 July 2016 at 18:46, Aaron Goldfein  wrote:
> Looks like things are starting to get interesting again. I register as a
> player.

Hello!

I also register.

Re: DIS: The ideal grind

[Charles Walker]

On 11 July 2016 at 18:31, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> I've been thinking about currency/grind games, and was trying to
> enumerate what makes them "successful" in Agora in my experience.
> Here's my start on a feature list; thoughts?
>
> The Ideal Grind
>
> 1.  Allows each player to perform around 3-6 "grindy" ("I harvest 1 corn")
> and 1-2 strategic ("I change my field to wheat") solo moves per week.
>
> 2.  Need to think ahead 2-3 weeks to make best moves, "thinking ahead"
> includes looking at other players' positions.
>
> 3.  You can miss 2-3 weeks and catch up (not that it shouldn't disadvantage
> you a bit).
>
> 4.  Win conditions achievable in 4-6 months.
>
> 5.  Big question:  cutthroat (everyone's position re-set on a win)
> versus friendly (you could win today and someone else could get there
> tomorrow).
>
> 6.  Other big question:  amount of randomness.
>
> 7.  At some point, requires trade (if game is friendly) or alliances
> (if game is cutthroat) to cross the finish line.

This is a good list. I'd lean towards the friendly model, but without
huge advantages for well-established players, to encourage newbies to
get involved.

I tend to prefer economies that link up with the rest of the game
somehow: rewards for getting proposals passed and holding offices, and
Agora-wide benefits to playing the subgame (extra votes, etc.). This
hopefully turns it into a game which is about political/economic power
as well as calculating the most effective moves. However, does that
end up taking us too far away from the grindy concept?

Re: DIS: The ideal grind

[Charles Walker]

On 13 July 2016 at 01:53, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>> I've been thinking about currency/grind games, and was trying to
>> enumerate what makes them "successful" in Agora in my experience.
>> Here's my start on a feature list; thoughts?
>
> I’m leery of “grind” economies, for a few reasons. If the system is flat 
> enough, it’s clear fairly early on who will reach various milestones first, 
> at which point the game itself devolves to going through the motions; making 
> a rich-enough grind economy is hard: it’s something people do as a career.

The AAA was grindy and popular for a while. I never played it
properly, but perhaps someone else has a theory as to why it worked.

Re: DIS: The ideal grind

[Charles Walker]

On 13 July 2016 at 21:32, nichdel  wrote:
> On 07/12/2016 08:02 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>
>> The real question is, what does Agora’s economy produce? I can think of
>> “rules proposals” and “reports,” and nichdel’s game prototype thread
>> suggests a few more things. Can we use a monetary game to incentivize those
>> effectively?
>>
>
> I'd make an argument that the commodity produced by Agora is the story of
> Agora. Ultimately, the story of Agora thus far is what attracts new players,
> and being a part of the story is often what influences people to stay for a
> long period of time. This is why we have so many permanent awards, why
> there's an (under-used) system for awarding degrees for meta-texts.

This is a really novel and interesting way to think about Agora.
Agora's rich history is one of the best parts of the game for me, and
I think that we should be better at retelling it. Of the Agora
messages which I have 'starred' in Gmail, most are posts about
previous gameplay systems, or other historical posts.

DIS: To-do

[Charles Walker]

I thought it might be useful to write up an informal to-do list for
all of the suggestions that have been made recently:
http://hearthgate.net/agorawiki/To-do-list

This is incomplete, and I encourage others to add or expand on items.
I should also point out that not everything on the list is
uncontroversial: I've just erred on the side of including things so
they don't get forgotten. A few of the tasks have been linked to
certain players who have been somehow involved (obviously feel free to
remove yourself if you're no longer interested) but most have been
left open/up for grabs.

I hope this is helpful.

-- Walker

Re: DIS: Proto: Old/New Economy Draft

[Charles Walker]

On 1 August 2016 at 02:19, nichdel  wrote:
> Critique and comments are welcome in general, but I also have a specific
> question:
>
>Right now I have a new office, the Bankor, and Currency Heads. The
>point of this system is to spread the control of the economy, and
>I've also made each Head track their currency's weekly events. Should
>I keep it this way, giving new responsibilities to the Arbitor,
>Speaker, and PM? or Should I consolidate the responsibilities in the
>Bankor position?

I think it's better spreading the work out between multiple offices,
especially as we can always have someone do more than one at once, but
I'm not convinced it should be these three offices: Speaker is
appointed/honorific and Arbitor can be a lot of work already
(particularly if we want to create a new CFJ database).

My main question is, does this meet our tentative new guidelines for
writing rules: e.g. meat/bones separated, officer duties all in one
rule? I think the answer is basically yes, but it's something we
should watch out for from now on.

I'd like there to be an option for different offices to have different
salaries (possibly through candidates proposing their salaries during
elections), but this is something that can be added later.

Should we set some kind of upper and lower limits on the size of
monthly auctions? Later, we could think about introducing a system
where election promises about auction sizes become binding, but that's
probably too complicated for now.

Minor points: I think a lot of your MAYs should be CANs, etc., specify
that the Tax Rate is a singleton switch and that rounding happens when
taxes are calculated.

DIS: InterNomic II

[Charles Walker]

I am proud to announce the rebirth of InterNomic II. It is hosted at
http://internomic2.wikidot.com/ and includes a fully functioning set of
forums. (The groups 'General' and 'Off-topic' under 'General' in the forums
allow for anonymous and non-member posts if you want to try it out without
joining.) The initial ruleset is similar to the one that was in use when
the original InterNomic died, except with a different layout.
So, B Nomic and Agora, the two biggest nomics at this time (possibly
excluding blognomic, but I can't contact them, so if anyone's a member
please forward this to them) are invited to join InterNomic II. The ruleset
is similar to the one that was in use when the original InterNomic died,
except with a different layout.

C-walker

PS Everyone is welcome to use the forums for anything nomic related. If you
want me to create nomic-specific groups, contact me.

DIS: InterNomic II

[Charles Walker]

I'm just checking up on how things are progressing regarding joining
InterNomic over here. Elsewhere it looks like we have 4 nomics ready to join
(If you wait for B Nomic to catch up in around 6 days).
C-walker

Re: DIS: InterNomic II

[Charles Walker]

Fresh Nomic, the nomic on the xkcd forums, and Blognomic.

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Ed Murphy  wrote:

> c-walker wrote:
>
> > I'm just checking up on how things are progressing regarding joining
> > InterNomic over here. Elsewhere it looks like we have 4 nomics ready to
> > join (If you wait for B Nomic to catch up in around 6 days).
>
> Who are the other three?
>
>

Re: DIS: InterNomic II

[Charles Walker]

Oh. I guess it still counts as a nomic.

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:

> I researched this Fresh Nomic a little bit and I've found that they have
> exactly one member who is literally playing nomic by himself.
>

Re: DIS: InterNomic II

[Charles Walker]

Oh, and there's also Faucet Nomic.

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Charles Walker <
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Oh. I guess it still counts as a nomic.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Aaron Goldfein 
> wrote:
>
>> I researched this Fresh Nomic a little bit and I've found that they have
>> exactly one member who is literally playing nomic by himself.
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Joining InterNomic 2

[Charles Walker]

You should keep it general, but you need to mention who is going to vote on
Agora's behalf as the liaison. You could say something along the lines of
'Where another nomic makes it possible for Agora or a representative of
Agora to perform actions within that nomic, X (person or post) may, without
3 or more objections, perform those actions.' But obviously more congruent
with Agora's ruleset.

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn  wrote:

> So, if I want to make a proposal about us joining IN2, how should I
> word it? Is referring to another nomic in the rules a good idea, or
> should they be kept general?
>

Re: DIS: Joining InterNomic 2

[Charles Walker]

Well I don't actually play Agora so I wouldn't know. I'ts probably better to
change the Ambassador rule.
C-walker

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:

> This X should probably be an office, but I'm not sure which one: first
> I thought the natural choice would be the Ambassador, but then I saw
> that "Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign
>  nomics operate on the Speaker's behalf." So should it be the Speaker?
>

Re: DIS: InterNomic II

[Charles Walker]

Hey, I've just researched this again and not including me, there are 3
members: http://groups.google.com/group/fresh-nomic?pli=1

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:

> I researched this Fresh Nomic a little bit and I've found that they have
> exactly one member who is literally playing nomic by himself.
>

Re: DIS: InterNomic II

[Charles Walker]

True. On InterNomic he mentioned that all four players know each other in
real life, so I assumed...

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:

> Yes, but do they play? I can't find any message by anyone other than
> kennercat...
>
> 2009/3/23 Charles Walker :
> > Hey, I've just researched this again and not including me, there are 3
> > members: http://groups.google.com/group/fresh-nomic?pli=1
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Aaron Goldfein  >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I researched this Fresh Nomic a little bit and I've found that they have
> >> exactly one member who is literally playing nomic by himself.
> >
>

Re: DIS: InterNomic II

[Charles Walker]

Agora can join B now. It just needs to post to spoon-business that it has
decided to become a faction.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Warrigal

> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
>  wrote:
> > We should so join this, right?
>
> I imagine it would be similar if Agora and B simply joined each other,
> or at least if B joined Agora. I believe that BlogNomic will not join.
>
> --Warrigal
>



-- 
C-walker

Re: DIS: Internomic2

[Charles Walker]

I accept that comment. I'll think about a new ruleset and we'll see what the
'nomic landscape' looks like in a few months.

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Elliott Hird <
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Well, Agora did the original InterNomic. I for one think that IN2's
> ruleset is too cookie-cutter; and, well, the nomic landscape isn't too
> exciting at the moment. Agora, B and Nomicron are the only ones with a
> lot of activity. It just isn't the right time, and I'm not sure it's
> the right ruleset.
>

-- 
C-walker

DIS: Possible Protectorate etc

[Charles Walker]

A discussion I just started over at B led to the following:
Warrigal:

"I think it would be possible to make B Nomic a public contract without
the objection of a party. This is an Agoran action, so the
announcement of intent and objections both have to go to Agora; one
does not need to be a player of Agora either to announce intent or to
object. B Nomic would be eligible for playerhood in Agora if B's rules
stated who was responsible for carrying out B's obligations in Agora."

About 3 or 4 people have just left B in quick succession so things are
looking pretty dead. Any advice on how to do the above?


C-walker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration

[Charles Walker]

C-walker, please.

C-walker


On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Charles Walker <
> charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I register.
>>
>> C-walker
>>
>
>
> Welcome. Is there any nickname you would like to use?
>

DIS: Re: BUS: New player registration

[Charles Walker]

Hey, I'm new here too so I don't know much, but there is this FAQ which was
published a while ago:

Agora Nomic FAQ
last updated 4/22/09


Q.  What's with the funny pronouns?
A.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun (Agora traditionally
   uses "e" as subject and "emself" as reflexive).

Q.  What is Power?
A.  Power is a number that restricts how rules, proposals, and other
   entities can affect the gamestate.  Rules with higher Power have
   higher precedence (Rule 1482) and are harder to amend (Rule 2140).

Q.  What is Adoption Index?  Which one should I use?
A.  When submitting a proposal, you should specify an Adoption Index
   at least as high as the highest-Power rule you plan to amend,
   otherwise some amendments will fail even if the proposal is
   adopted (Rules 106, 2140).  A higher Adoption Index requires a
   higher ratio of votes in favor (Rule 955); basically, AI=1 requires
   50% + 1, AI=2 requires a 2/3 majority, AI=3 requires a 3/4 majority.

Q.  Do the rules get reset when someone wins?
A.  No, but each method of winning is generally accompanied by a
   cleanup procedure (Rule 2186) that resets the relevant part of the
   gamestate, e.g. winning by High Score resets scores.

Q.  Why does Rule 104 (First Speaker) still exist?
A.  It's the only initial rule that's never been amended.  Some of us
   want to keep it that way.

Q.  What's the best way to get up to speed on the rules?
A.  The Full Logical Ruleset (Rule 1681) includes cross-references
   and notes on interpretation.

Q.  What's with lots of titles ending in "-or" instead of "-er"?
A.  Historical precedent, dating back to at least "Rulekeepor" in
   Rule 399/1 (now 1051/18; amended rules used to be renumbered).

Q.  What does "Cantus Cygneus" mean?
A.  Latin for "swan song".  Probably grammatically incorrect.

Q.  What's the Senate for?
A.  A line of defense in case some large group of trolls ever decides
   "hur hur, we can ruin this game because we outnumber the existing
   players".  If the trolls appear patient enough to wait two months,
   then we have time to erect stronger defenses.

Q.  Why is the recordkeepor of Rests called the Insulator?
A.  Mixed metaphor.  The recordkeepor of Notes is called the Conductor.

Q.  What's with the words in all caps?
A.  See Rule 2152, which was explicitly based on RFC 2119.

Q.  How long is "as soon as possible" / "in a timely fashion"?
A.  One week (Rule 1023).

Q.  How are weeks defined?
A.  Absolute weeks (e.g. "at least once a week", "during the same week")
   begin at midnight UTC on Monday (Rule 1023).  Relative durations
   (e.g. "within one week after") are measured relatively.

Q.  How should trivial corrections be made?
A.  Without objection (Rule 2221) or via disinterested proposal (Rules
   2153, 2224).

Q.  What's an index?
A.  A real number or +inf ("unanimity") or -inf (Rule 2146).

Q.  What's a switch?
A.  A single-value attribute relevant to a specified type of entity,
   with a default setting (Rule 2162).

Q.  Why do replies go to the discussion list?
A.  Because most replies are discussionary in nature.  If you send an
   attempted action to the discussion list by mistake, just forward
   it to the business list and add "TTttPF" ("this time to the Public
   Forum").

Q.  Why are lots of things performed "by announcement"?
A.  Agora has long rejected the interpretation that any action can
   implicitly be performed by saying so ("I say I do, therefore I
   do").  Defining and using "by announcement" (Rule 478) makes it
   explicit.

Q.  What are the time limits for actions with support or without
   objections?
A.  The action must be performed within fourteen days of announcing
   intent.  If the action depends on objections, then there's a
   minimum four-day wait.  (Rule 1728)

Q.  What is Agoran Consent?
A.  Basically "with more support than objections".  Specifying a number
   may increase the difficulty.  (Rule 1728)

Q.  What are fungible assets?
A.  Interchangeable, indistinguishable.  One typically says "you owe me
   a dollar", not "you owe me the dollar with a particular serial
   number".  (Rule 2166)

Q.  What happens if a player leaves the game while holding an office?
A.  Only players can hold office (Rule 1006), so the office becomes
   vacant.

Q.  What is deputisation?
A.  A method for any player to perform a duty of an office because the
   officer is slacking off but hasn't been replaced yet, or the office
   is vacant (Rule 2160).

Q.  What's the schedule for elections to office?
A.  Elections occur whenever someone initiates one (Rule 2154); this is
   only required of the IADoP when the office is vacant or its holder
   is inactive (Rule 2217).  Nominations last for four days, then the
   IADoP initiates voting if needed (Rule 2154) which lasts for seven
   days (Rule 107).

Q.  Do I have to accept or decline if I'm nominated?  Can I change my
   mind?
A.  Self-nominations are implicitly accepted, other nominations are
   implicitly decli

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New player registration

[Charles Walker]

Here's a greeting card to go with it:

---
| |
|You Play |
| Nomic ? |
| |
|Get well |
| soon... |
| |
---

C-walker


On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 4:29 PM, comex  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Elliott Hird
>  wrote:
> >> Also, something like a fruit basket (or suitable facsimile image of a
fruit
> >> basket) with a lovely greeting card would be a nice touch.  I'm feeling
> >> rather down today, it's been raining all weekend.
> >
> > \  /
> >  \/
> >  \ fruit/
> >   \/
> >
> > Please view with a monospaced font.
>
> A most excellent still life.

DIS: Re: BUS: [IADoP] Anarchist Election

[Charles Walker]

I endorse Tiger.
C-walker


On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:

> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Aaron Goldfein 
> wrote:
> > I initiate an Agoran decision to choose the holder of the Anarchist
> > office. The eligible voters are the active players, the vote collector
> > is the IADoP, and the candidates are Tiger, Quazie, and coppro.
>
> I vote Tiger
>

DIS: Re: BUS: i register

[Charles Walker]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Geoffrey Spear  wrote:

> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> > i am a separate person from quazie and i register at this e-mail
> > address with a nickname of 'gwen.'
>
> I create a White ribbon in gwen's possession.
>

Can I have one of those?

c-walker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: i register

[Charles Walker]

Oh, thanks.
C-walker


On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Geoffrey Spear  wrote:

> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Charles Walker
>  wrote:
> >> I create a White ribbon in gwen's possession.
> >
> > Can I have one of those?
>
> You gained one when you registered; it was 2 days before ribbons were
> pragmatized.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Nomic relations

[Charles Walker]

InterNomic II already knows ;)
C-walker


On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 23:18 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I intend, without objection, to flip the Recognition of Internomic II
> >  to Neutral.
> Without objection, I do so.
>
> > I intend, without objection, to flip the Recognition of Fresh Nomic
> >  to Neutral. (Note, however,
> > that there seems to be no way to inform Fresh Nomic of anything without
> > joining it, due to the way its rules are structured; therefore, I'd most
> > likely try to send messages to it by informing some of its players
> > directly.)
> Without objection, I do so.
>
> > I intend, with Agoran Consent, to act on behalf of Agora to cause Agora
> > to join Internomic II.
> With Agoran consent, I do so. (There was 6 support and 2 objections.)
> Internomic II will be informed shortly.
>
> --
> ais523
> Ambassador
> who isn't quite sure if the rules are attempting to platonically perform
> actions in foreign nomics here
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomic relations

[Charles Walker]

Oh, sorry. Normally I get an email when someone requests membership. I've
accepted your application, just remember to log in before you try and post.

C-walker


On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 13:35 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
> > InterNomic II already knows ;)
> Well, could they at least let me post to their forum? (/me grumbles at
> Wikidot, /again/...)
>
> --
> ais523
> Ambassador
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2452 assigned to Yally

[Charles Walker]

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:

>
> The archives should be molded to fit the needs of the game, not the game
> molded to fit the needs of the archives.
>
> I would agree with that if there seemed to be any point in using plain
text attachments.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2452 assigned to Yally

[Charles Walker]

Oh, sorry. I didn't know that.

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Sean Hunt  wrote:

> There was in that circumstance. The puzzle required tab characters to
> work properly and they were being dropped. As a result, it had to be
> sent as an attachment.
>

-- 
C-walker

DIS: Re: BUS: Ain't no party like a C# party

[Charles Walker]

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
>
>
> I initiate a Call of Equity regarding this action. As Murphy has
> already been the contestmaster you SHALL NOT flip the contestmaster to
> em.
>
> (When it comes to rules the easy way to do this is to publish an NoV,
> but I don't think I can do that with contracts, right?)
>
>
I plead insanity.

-- 
C-walker

DIS: Proto: Senators

[Charles Walker]

Proto:

(AI = 2)

In the rule "The Senate" replace

A Senator is any first-class player who has been registered
continuously for the immediately preceding sixty days.
with

A Senator is a first-class player who meets one or more of the following
criteria:

1) They have been continuously registered for the immediately preceding
sixty days.

2) They have been continuously registered for the immediately preceding
thirty days, and posses a Green Ribbon.

3) They posses a Violet, Indigo or Red Ribbon.

end proto
-- 
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

Fwd: DIS: Proto: Senators

[Charles Walker]

I don't think this worked first time round, so:

-- Forwarded message --
From: Charles Walker 
Date: Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Subject: DIS: Proto: Senators
To: agora-discussion 


Proto:

(AI = 2)

In the rule "The Senate" replace

A Senator is any first-class player who has been registered
continuously for the immediately preceding sixty days.
with

A Senator is a first-class player who meets one or more of the following
criteria:

1) They have been continuously registered for the immediately preceding
sixty days.

2) They have been continuously registered for the immediately preceding
thirty days, and posses a Green Ribbon.

3) They posses a Violet, Indigo or Red Ribbon.

end proto
-- 
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.



-- 
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Legislative Dominance

[Charles Walker]

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Ed Murphy  wrote:

> Taral wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >> Oh bribery proposals are cute.  It's a good test every so often to see
> >> if the current players are a group of voters you want to be playing a
> game
> >> with.  And deregistration is good test to use as, whichever the answer,
> >> one doesn't have to follow up. :)  -G.
> >
> > I guess I'm a little touchy right now because the game has been very
> > chaotic recently. What with the rapid succession of scams, it feels
> > like little progress can be made in terms of game development. This
> > just looked like a coup-de-grace, if you will.
>
> This.  Is anyone willing to maintain a Schroedingor's report, even
> if unofficially?
>
>
I am. Would it be weekly or monthly?

-- 
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census

[Charles Walker]

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 2:46 AM, Taral  wrote:

> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Aaron Goldfein 
> wrote:
> > Or we could just... you know... change the quorum rules.
>
> Or the activity rules. In B nomic, one is only "active" in a sense if
> one has voted in the previous week.
>
> --
> Taral 
> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
>-- Unknown
>
Not any more. We stole Agora's ruleset.


-- 
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: zeckalpha is to be registered.

[Charles Walker]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote:

> zeckalpha is to be registered.
>

Welcome. You may find the following useful if you've never played before:
[ With thanks to Murphy ]

Agora Nomic FAQ
last updated 4/22/09


Q.  What's with the funny pronouns?
A.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun (Agora traditionally
   uses "e" as subject and "emself" as reflexive).

Q.  What is Power?
A.  Power is a number that restricts how rules, proposals, and other
   entities can affect the gamestate.  Rules with higher Power have
   higher precedence (Rule 1482) and are harder to amend (Rule 2140).

Q.  What is Adoption Index?  Which one should I use?
A.  When submitting a proposal, you should specify an Adoption Index
   at least as high as the highest-Power rule you plan to amend,
   otherwise some amendments will fail even if the proposal is
   adopted (Rules 106, 2140).  A higher Adoption Index requires a
   higher ratio of votes in favor (Rule 955); basically, AI=1 requires
   50% + 1, AI=2 requires a 2/3 majority, AI=3 requires a 3/4 majority.

Q.  Do the rules get reset when someone wins?
A.  No, but each method of winning is generally accompanied by a
   cleanup procedure (Rule 2186) that resets the relevant part of the
   gamestate, e.g. winning by High Score resets scores.

Q.  Why does Rule 104 (First Speaker) still exist?
A.  It's the only initial rule that's never been amended.  Some of us
   want to keep it that way.

Q.  What's the best way to get up to speed on the rules?
A.  The Full Logical Ruleset (Rule 1681) includes cross-references
   and notes on interpretation.

Q.  What's with lots of titles ending in "-or" instead of "-er"?
A.  Historical precedent, dating back to at least "Rulekeepor" in
   Rule 399/1 (now 1051/18; amended rules used to be renumbered).

Q.  What does "Cantus Cygneus" mean?
A.  Latin for "swan song".  Probably grammatically incorrect.

Q.  What's the Senate for?
A.  A line of defense in case some large group of trolls ever decides
   "hur hur, we can ruin this game because we outnumber the existing
   players".  If the trolls appear patient enough to wait two months,
   then we have time to erect stronger defenses.

Q.  Why is the recordkeepor of Rests called the Insulator?
A.  Mixed metaphor.  The recordkeepor of Notes is called the Conductor.

Q.  What's with the words in all caps?
A.  See Rule 2152, which was explicitly based on RFC 2119.

Q.  How long is "as soon as possible" / "in a timely fashion"?
A.  One week (Rule 1023).

Q.  How are weeks defined?
A.  Absolute weeks (e.g. "at least once a week", "during the same week")
   begin at midnight UTC on Monday (Rule 1023).  Relative durations
   (e.g. "within one week after") are measured relatively.

Q.  How should trivial corrections be made?
A.  Without objection (Rule 2221) or via disinterested proposal (Rules
   2153, 2224).

Q.  What's an index?
A.  A real number or +inf ("unanimity") or -inf (Rule 2146).

Q.  What's a switch?
A.  A single-value attribute relevant to a specified type of entity,
   with a default setting (Rule 2162).

Q.  Why do replies go to the discussion list?
A.  Because most replies are discussionary in nature.  If you send an
   attempted action to the discussion list by mistake, just forward
   it to the business list and add "TTttPF" ("this time to the Public
   Forum").

Q.  Why are lots of things performed "by announcement"?
A.  Agora has long rejected the interpretation that any action can
   implicitly be performed by saying so ("I say I do, therefore I
   do").  Defining and using "by announcement" (Rule 478) makes it
   explicit.

Q.  What are the time limits for actions with support or without
   objections?
A.  The action must be performed within fourteen days of announcing
   intent.  If the action depends on objections, then there's a
   minimum four-day wait.  (Rule 1728)

Q.  What is Agoran Consent?
A.  Basically "with more support than objections".  Specifying a number
   may increase the difficulty.  (Rule 1728)

Q.  What are fungible assets?
A.  Interchangeable, indistinguishable.  One typically says "you owe me
   a dollar", not "you owe me the dollar with a particular serial
   number".  (Rule 2166)

Q.  What happens if a player leaves the game while holding an office?
A.  Only players can hold office (Rule 1006), so the office becomes
   vacant.

Q.  What is deputisation?
A.  A method for any player to perform a duty of an office because the
   officer is slacking off but hasn't been replaced yet, or the office
   is vacant (Rule 2160).

Q.  What's the schedule for elections to office?
A.  Elections occur whenever someone initiates one (Rule 2154); this is
   only required of the IADoP when the office is vacant or its holder
   is inactive (Rule 2217).  Nominations last for four days, then the
   IADoP initiates voting if needed (Rule 2154) which lasts for seven
   days (Rule 107).

Q.  Do I have to accept or decline if I'm nominated?  Can I change my

DIS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador] Foreign Relations

[Charles Walker]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:

> [NOTE: In order to aid other officers who need to know whether
> Ambassador duties have been done or not, I'm now adding them to the
> history of this report.]
>
> Foreign relations


No matter what I do, this report /always/ flips every nomic-related filter I
have in my gmail. In other news, I've proposed InterNomic becomes a
protectorate of Agora. We have a week to vote and it needs an 80% majority
to pass. Currently Nomicide and the xkcd forum nomic are the only other
members, although I may make B join at some point.

--
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [IBA] Motion to Amend

[Charles Walker]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:40 PM, comex  wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Charles Walker
>  wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:28 PM, comex  wrote:
> >> I initiate a Motion to Amend, specifying the following amendment (in
> >> diff format).  The eligible voters are the parties to the IBA, the
> >> options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT, and I am the vote collector.  I
> >> vote FOR the Motion to Amend.
> > I vote PRESENT.
>
> You're not an eligible voter, unless I missed you joining the IBA.
>

No, you're right. I thought I had joined. I join the IBA.

-- 
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We Should Have Done This Long Ago

[Charles Walker]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Quazie  wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Roger Hicks  wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:35, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> >>> Get off my lawn! Even I lurked for a month or two :P
> >>
> >> I didn't.  Registered within an hour of finding this place.  Well, I
> >> attempted to and caused a CFJ, *then* registered.  And no, you can't
> >> have your frisbee back.  -G.
> >>
> > I never lurked on the lists. The first time I found Agora I tried to
> > grok the ruleset, got lost about halfway through and moved on to other
> > nomics. Later after getting the hang of how nomic worked I came back,
> > re-read the rulset (and made a little more sense of it), subscribed to
> > a-b and registered (well, tried anyway. I think my first attempt was
> > found to be unsuccessful on CFJ).
> >
> > BobTHJ
> >
>
> I had a printout copy of the ruleset the first time i started agora.
>

I ran out of paper.

-- 
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Senators

[Charles Walker]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Benjamin Caplan <
celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Charles Walker wrote:
> > A player CAN cause another person to cease to be a Senator with Senator
> > Consent.
>
> Presumably this is supposed to mean "with something like Agoran Consent,
> except that only Senators can vote". This might work in a contract
> (though it could also be read as "with the not-necessarily-TTPF-Support
> of one other Senator"), but Rules need to be more rigorous.
>

The Senate rule also uses "with Senator Supporters", which is also undefined
and could be not-necessarily-TTPF-Support, but I think both the current
usage and the one in my proposal are fairly unambiguous, and certainly
wouldn't be what senators would be arguing over if there ever was an
emergency.*

-- 
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.
*well, maybe it would, but they /shouldn't/

DIS: proto: Constituencies

[Charles Walker]

{ AI 2, II 2
[ This allows players to choose "Representatives" through contracts, who can
vote on their behalf in decisions

Create a new power 2 Rule:

{{

A Constituency is a public contract identifying itself as such. A
Constituency requires at least 3 parties.

A player SHALL NOT attempt to become a party to more than one Constituency
at a time; doing this is the Class 4 Crime of Electoral Fraud.

If a player is a party to more than one Constituency at a time, e
immediately ceases to be party to all Constituencies, except the one e most
recently became party to.

Representative is a Constituency switch, with values 'none' (default) and
all first-class parties to that contract.

A Constituency's Representative CAN be flipped by any party without 3
objections, or by a mechanism specified by the Constituency.

Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, it CANNOT be flipped in any other
way, and CANNOT be flipped to a given player if any of the following are
true:

a) The player has not explicitly consented to be the Representative of that
Constituency. (Intent to flip a Constituency's Representative to oneself
constitutes explicit consent to be the Representative of that contest.)

b) A member of that player's basis is already a Representative.

A player who is not party to a Constituency is an Independent.

}}

Repeal Rule .

Replace the entire text of Rule 1950, "Voting on Democratic Decisions",
with:

{{

If there is no Emergency Session at the time a democratic decision is
initiated, the eligible voters on are those entities that were active
first-class Independents or active Representatives at the start of its
voting period, the voting limit of each Independent is one and the voting
limit of each Representative is the number of active first-class parties to
eir Constituency. Otherwise the eligible voters are the active Senators and
each Senator has a voting limit of one on the decision.

}}

Replace the last paragraph of Rule 2156, "Voting on Ordinary Decisions",
with:

{{

If there is no Emergency Session at the time an ordinary decision is
initiated, the eligible voters are those entities that were active
Indepentents or Representatives at the start of its voting period, the voting
limit of each Independent is eir caste at the start of its voting period,
reduced to the next lower caste (minimum Savage) for each positive multiple
of 4 Rests that the voter posesses at the start of the voting period and the
voting limit of each Representative is the total of all castes of active
parties to eir Constituency, reduced by 3 for each positive multiple of 4
Rests that all parties to eir Constituency posses. Otherwise, the eligible
voters are the active Senators and each Senator has a voting limit of one on
the decision.

}}

Replace the second and third points in Rule 2154, "Election Procedure",
with:

{{

2) If there is no Emergency Session at the time the decision is initiated,
the eligible voters are the active first-class Independents and the active
Representatives. Otherwise, the eligible voters are the active Senators.

3) If there is no Emergency Session at the time the decision is initiated, the
voting limit of each first-class Independent on an election is one and the
voting limit of each Representative is the number of active first-class
parties to eir Constituency. Otherwise, the voting limit of each Senator is
one. An ordered list of multiple choices constitutes a conditional vote for
the first choice if it could be the outcome, otherwise the second choice if
it could be the outcome, and so forth.
}}

In Rule 1367, "Degrees", replace the bulleted list defining an Agoran
Decision with:

{{

 1) The available options are FAILING GRADE and each degree that the author
does not have. The available options can change during the voting period.

 2) The eligible voters are each active Independent and each active
Representative at the time the decision is initiated.

 3) Each eligible voter's voting limit on the decision is thrice what their
voting limit would have been on an ordinary decision initiated at the same
time as this one, plus five for each degree e held at that time. (This
includes degrees held by parties to the Constituency of each
Representative.)

 4) The specific thesis for which the degree is to be awarded is an
essential parameter of the decision (but not the text of that thesis).

}

And here's a proto-consituency:

{

The Agoran People's Party

 - The name of this public contract is the Agoran People's Party.

 - This contract is a Constituency.

 - Any player CAN join or leave this contract by announcement.

 - The Representative of this Constituency CAN change as allowed by the
Rules, or with 1.5 Party Consent.

 - This contract CAN be amended as allowed by the Rules or with 1.5 Party
Consent.

 - Any party CAN flip the Representative of this Constituency to C-walker by
announcement. Any party CAN remove this paragraph from this contract by
announcement if C-walker is the Representa

Re: DIS: proto: Constituencies

[Charles Walker]

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Charles Walker <
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> { AI 2, II 2
> [ This allows players to choose "Representatives" through contracts, who
> can vote on their behalf in decisions
>

I didn't finish this description, so here's a completed one:

[ This allows players to choose "Representatives" through contracts, who can
vote on their behalf in decisions; how this works is left up to the
contract. This could all link in with new parliamentary procedures: parties,
government and opposition etc, such as the one protoed to fit with cards a
while ago. ]




-- 
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Airstrip One] Flight Schedule

[Charles Walker]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Ed Murphy  wrote:

> c-walker wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Ed Murphy  > > wrote:
> >
> > Flight Schedule
> >
> >
> > If I haven't already, I join this contract.
>
> It lets you, but you don't need to; props are available to all
> first-class players, amendment is without-objection, and it's
> a pledge so I can't unilaterally shut it down by leaving it.


So a contract I'm not party to can create assets in my possession?

-- 
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Anarchist] Anarchist Anarchy

[Charles Walker]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Jonatan
> Kilhamn wrote:
> > 2009/6/7 Aaron Goldfein :
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn <
> jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The following proposal constitutes the Anarchists weekly duties.
> >>>
> >>> Anarchist Anarchy
> >>> AI=1, II=0
> >>> ((
> >>> Repeal Rule 2216 (The repeal-o-matic)
> >>> ))
> >>>
> >>> This message was sent Fri 6 May
> >>> These duties were last fulfilled Sun 31 May
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> -Tiger
> >>
> >> Seriously?
> >>
> > No, I'm just out of ideas at the moment. Sorry about recently (the
> > weird judgment, the late judgment, this proposal), I feel like a
> > really bad player and have no real excuse for it. I'll stick to
> > anarchist as long as you let me. Even if it's probably just me not
> > coming up with anything good, I like to view the fact that the Anarchy
> > proposals fail as an indication that the ruleset doesn't have any
> > unnecessary rules - I can't really improve it just by repealing parts
> > of it.
> >
> > --
> > -Tiger
> >
>
> If you're tired of the position, I'll gladly take it.  I think a lot
> can be done with it and it doesn't deserve to go.  The position is
> needed precisely because the ruleset is so stable.  By removing pieces
> of it, the Anarchist is really helping it grow.  For example, if a
> Note Anarchy of some sort was voted in, it might jumpstart the long
> talked about transition to Cards or maybe some other, as yet unknown
> form of currency.  With the adoption of the recent amendment to the
> rule defining it, the Anarchist is quite possibly the only truly
> creative office in the game and I would hate to see it go.
>

I completely agree, and would also be interested in the office. I'm also
inspired to think up some creative offices.

-- 
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Airstrip One] Flight Schedule

[Charles Walker]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>
>  If I haven't already, I join this contract.
>>
>> You can't join this contract.
>

R2198:

If a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to it, then any
person CAN become a party to it by announcement.

-- C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

Re: DIS: Distributability?

[Charles Walker]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Taral  wrote:

> What about making Distributability like NoVs, where it's with N
> support? You get one free proposal per week...


Great idea.

-- 
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

Re: DIS: Proto: Proposal Review Board

[Charles Walker]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Benjamin Caplan <
celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> > 2009/6/10 Sean Hunt :
> >> I like. I think it should be 2 elected + the Promotor.
> >
> > Promotor + 1 prerogative + 1 elected?
>
> At this point, perhaps the three positions should have different roles,
> either related or unrelated to the actual review board.
>
> Maybe we could just pick three existing offices. Probably from the set
> {Promotor, Assessor, Anarchist, Janitor, Rulekeepor, Grand Poobah,
> Speaker}?


I think the first five of those, but with some compensation for current
officers that don't want to do the new job.

-- 
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Actual Anarchist Election

[Charles Walker]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> > I initiate an Agoran decision to decide the holder of the Anarchist
> > office. The eligible voters are the active players, the vote collector
> > is the IADoP, and the valid options are allispaul, C-walker, Tiger
> > (incumbent), Yally, and PRESENT.
>
> I endorse Tiger.
>
> I rubberstamp this decision.
>

I was going to say that rubberstamp only works on non-democratic decisions,
but then I realised that the agora-definition means this election isn't.

-- 
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

DIS: proto: proto pool

[Charles Walker]

I transfer a prop from myself to BobTHJ because I really like his
Proposal Review Board idea, and I've stolen parts of it for this
proto:

{

Create a proto pool. Only disinterested proposals can be submitted
directly to the proposal pool; all others must first be submitted to
the proto pool. Protos can be amended or retracted by their author, by
announcement, or by any player with the consent of the author.

A proto that has been the the pool for at least 5 days can be made
into a proposal (submitted) by its author, by announcement, or by any
player with the consent of the author.

A proto that has been in the proto pool for II + 7 days is
automatically made into a proposal.

Create a new office: the Assistant Director of Proposals. The ADoP
tracks the proto pool and serves on the following panel along with the
Promotor and Assessor.

When a proposal is submitted, the each panel member SHALL ASAP select
one of the following for that proposal:

AMEND - The proposal becomes a proto.

ADOPT - After one week the proposal becomes ADOPTED unless there are 4
objections during that time. If objected to, the proposal instead
becomes distributable. Useful for proposals that fix grammar or other
errors, disinterested proposals, or proposals which otherwise would
not cause controversy.

PROMOTE - The proposal becomes distributable (chosen by default if
there is no majority panel decision).

The panel can also unanimously select TERRIBLE - The proposal is
removed from the pool after one week unless made distributable before
that time.

I would also suggest increasing the cost of making a proposal Distributable.

}

My hope is that this solves the problems of large, cluttered
distributions and badly written proposals. The general public can help
refine protos in a system which allows for them to be made into
proposals without retraction/ resubmission etc, and the panel can sort
through the proposals.

I'm not sure whether the Assessor and Promotor are the right offices
to serve on the panel along with the new ADoP. Suggestions? And any
other comments?

--
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

DIS: Agora-B Economics

[Charles Walker]

I submit the following two protos. The first is intended to be adopted
in Agora, the other in B. Comments welcome.

{

It's Greek to Me

AI = 1, II = 1

Adopt a new power 1 Rule:

{{

Kolios is a type of asset and a currency, tracked by the Accountor.

A player CAN destroy a Note to create 5 Kolios in eir possession.

A player CAN destroy a B Nomic Mackerel to create a Kolios in eir possession.

A player CAN destroy a Kolios to create a B Nomic Mackerel in eir possession.

}}

}

{

AI = 1, II = 1

If a rule defining Mackerel exists, append to it the following:

{{

A player CAN destroy a Mackerel to create an Agoran Kolios in eir possession.

A player CAN destroy an Agoran Kolios to create a Mackerel in eir possession.

}}

}

-- 
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

Re: DIS: proto: proto pool

[Charles Walker]

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 10:47 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> Add a penalty for authoring proposals that are rejected to the current
>> distributability system and the problem goes away without an extra
>> layer of bureaucracy.
>
> What about a sort of deposit system? Pay 3 Notes (or some new asset we
> invent, in the future) to submit a proposal, you get them back if/when
> the proposal is adopted.

I would couple this with a different type of currency (probably card)
of which players gain one a month and can purchase extra with Notes or
equivalent.

-- 
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

DIS: Re: BUS: Gramatically Correct

[Charles Walker]

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Charles Walker wrote:
>> I was just trying to keep the Janitor in work, honest.
>>
>> I submit the following proposal and intend to make it Distributable
>> without objection:
>
> Again, I object.  -G.

I feel this is grossly unfair. I am a new player with very few notes
and intend to gain most my Notes/ new currency of them through
proposals. If I have to pay to get them distributed, then this becomes
almost impossible for me to do with the few Notes I have now. I even
set the II of that proposal to 0, zeroing the number of Notes I could
gain from it anyway. If your intention is to get the economy going
then maybe you could spend some Notes?

-- 
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.

DIS: Re: BUS: The Livenomic Partnership

[Charles Walker]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Charles
Walker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:48 AM,
>> C-walker wrote:
>>> The LNP intends, with Agoran Consent, to register.
>>
>> I support.
>>
>
> Having received no objections and one support, I act on behalf of LNP
> to register it.

I believe this fails because all LNP parties need to consent to it.
Wooble already has privately, so c., could you please consent to the
resolution of this intent?


-- 
C-walker (Charles Walker)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: IBA Motions

[Charles Walker]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 4:37 PM, comex wrote:
> Proposal: Fix R107 (AI=3, II=0)
> {
> Amend Rule 107 by replacing "correctly identified" with "publicly
> identified".

I'm pretty sure that the identification should still be correct as
well as public.

-- 
C-walker (Charles Walker)

DIS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Deck of Government report

[Charles Walker]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Jonatan
Kilhamn wrote:
>       === Grand Poobah's Deck of Government report ===

Suggestion for addition to this and all other card reports: what cards
actually do. I can never remember.

-- 
C-walker (Charles Walker)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cards

[Charles Walker]

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Jonatan
Kilhamn wrote:
> 2009/9/5 Charles Walker :
>> I spend Distrib-u-matic to make the proposal FIXME Distributable.
>>
>> I go on hold.
>>
>> I audit myself.
>>
>> I come off hold.
>
> This destroys a bunch of random cards you hold, right?

Yes.

Good luck determining which ones were destroyed. :P

-- 
C-walker (Charles Walker)

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2674 assigned to woggle

[Charles Walker]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 16:43, Charles Reiss  wrote:
>> On 9/5/09 8:09 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2674
>>>
>>> ==  Criminal Case 2674 (Interest Index = 2)  ===
>>>
>>>     BobTHJ violated Rule 2143, committing the Class-N Crime of
>>>     Tardiness (with N=1) by failing to publish a Herald's report in
>>>     the week prior to the one in which this message is published.
>>>
>>> 
>>
>> I judge GUILTY / SILENCE.
>>
> I appeal this case. By custom Agora has permitted new officers a full
> ASAP period to fulfill outstanding obligations.

Game custom does not take precedence over the text of the rules.

-- 
C-walker (Charles Walker)

DIS: Re: BUS: Supersize

[Charles Walker]

On 11/09/2009, comex  wrote:
> I intend, without three objections, to change Contract B's contestmaster to
> me.
> I intend, without three objections, to change Contract B's threshold
> index to 70.

Contract B?

-- 
C-walker (Charles Walker)

DIS: Re: BUS: BobTHJ's Actions (automated)

[Charles Walker]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:49 PM, ais523  wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 17:41 -0500, pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
>> {
>> ais523 is dealt the following card(s) from the deck of Justice: 
>> Absolv-o-Matic, Drop Your Weapon, Dunce Cap
>> }
>> Reason: Notary weekly salary
>
> I transfer the Dunce Cap to the Lost and Found Department. (This works
> because rule 2166:

To further complicate matters, R2257 says:

  Each defined Exploit card type in a Deck shall have a Frequency,

As the Dunce Cap card is an effect card, not an exploit, I'm not sure
whether ais523 was dealt the card in the first place, and if e was,
whether it was legal.

-- 
C-walker (Charles Walker)

DIS: Re: BUS: Ambassador Stuff

[Charles Walker]

On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Elliott Hird
 wrote:
> 2009/9/12 Charles Walker :
>> I intend, without objection, to flip the Recognition of #nomirc on
>> Freenode to Neutral.
>
> I object; from what I hear its players are a little incompetent at IRC.

I don't see how this is a valid objection. Agora should be open to
diplomatic relations with heathen nomics as well as the more refined
ones.

Would you object if I used my current dictatorship over the nomic to
make it into a protectorate?

-- 
C-walker (Charles Walker)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ambassador Stuff

[Charles Walker]

On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Elliott Hird
 wrote:
> 2009/9/12 Charles Walker :
>> I don't see how this is a valid objection. Agora should be open to
>> diplomatic relations with heathen nomics as well as the more refined
>> ones.
>
> Well, true, I guess it is Neutral vs Friendly.
>
> I retract said objection if we can do that these days.

I've just realised that dependant actions are still broken. Thanks for
the withdrawal anyway.

-- 
C-walker (Charles Walker)

DIS: A Criminal Problem

[Charles Walker]

It strikes me that Rests aren't much of a punishment atm: you can burn
them off easily enough with Absolv-o-matics, which you are likely to
get for free each month. This also goes against the whole concept of
rests; you are supposed to have to work to burn them off. In fact, it
strikes me that having a card just for burning off rests encourages
people to commit crimes in general. Even if you don't commit crimes
yourself, you are likely to trade away the cards (directly or
indirectly) to someone who will then use them to burn off rests.

The other problem with Agora's criminal system at the moment is that
punishments tend to have no relation to the severity of the crime.
Apart from the defined Class-N crimes, which tend to be the most
severe (and yet not often perpetrated), the number of Rests a ninny
gets depends on the Power of the violated Rule, which IMO has nothing
to do with how bad the crime is.

Someone (I think coppro?) recently attempted to resolve some of these
issues in eir criminal reform proposal, but it failed for reasons I
forget. Here are some of my suggestions:

When judging SILENCE, the judge specifies how many Rests should be
created. If the judgement remains unappealed for one week, any player
CAN create the specified number of Rests in the posssession of the
ninny by announcement.

Get rid of free monthly salaries.

Get rid of Absolv-o-matics. Instead, you can use certain other cards
to destroy Rests.

Increase the negative effects of Rests. Btw, I remember that it used
to be impossible to spend Notes for anything other than destroying
Rests when you went past a certain threshold. Do we still have that
for Cards? If not, it would be a good thing to add. Another idea is
not allowing players with more than X Rests to transfer assets (maybe
just cards or just Rule-defined assets).

Comments?

-- 
C-walker (Charles Walker)

DIS: Attn. Wooble, coppro

[Charles Walker]

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Charles Walker
 wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Geoffrey Spear  wrote:
>> chamber: democratic
>> ai: 3.0
>> interest: 1
>> proposer: coppro
>> coauthors:
>> title: FIXME
>> submit_date: 2009-08-27
>> submit_mid: <4a970a36.6040...@gmail.com>
>> distributability: undistributable
>
> CoE: I remember making this Distributable in the message in which I
> self-audited (before the audit, so there's no ambiguity as to whether
> I had the right card).

Wooble, have you admitted or denied this CoE? I can't seem to find I
reply and I thought it would be best to point it out before you
distribute this week.

Also, coppro, have you increased my caste twice yet? I may call equity
on our contract if you don't before this week's distribution.

-- 
C-walker (Charles Walker)

Re: DIS: Attn. Wooble, coppro

[Charles Walker]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Geoffrey Spear  wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Charles Walker
>  wrote:
>> Wooble, have you admitted or denied this CoE? I can't seem to find I
>> reply and I thought it would be best to point it out before you
>> distribute this week.
>
> The report's not self-ratifying; I flagged the message to update the
> distributability status.
>

Fair enough, I was just making sure you had noticed it.

-- 
C-walker (Charles Walker)

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2677 assigned to Pavitra

[Charles Walker]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Roger Hicks  wrote:
> Based on this judgment I deny all CoEs against the most recently
> published Insulator's Justice report and Anarchist's Change report.
> Both reports were completely accurate. Furthermore I argue for NOT
> GUILTY in related criminal CFJs brought against me.

I repeat my argument for GUILTY in both of these cases. While BobTHJ's
reports have indirectly been found to be correct, they were still
misleading in that they made no reference to the ambiguity surrounding
my card ownership.

-- 
C-walker (Charles Walker)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A Minor Change

[Charles Walker]

c wrote:
>  Charles Walker wrote:
>> I change my nickname to Walker.
>
> So, you subtracted me?

Yeah, sorry.

-- 
Charles Walker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Insulator Election

[Charles Walker]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Sean Hunt  wrote:
> Charles Walker wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Sean Hunt  wrote:
>>>
>>> This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to decide the
>>> holder of the office of Insulator. For this Decision, the
>>> eligible voters are all the active first-class players, each with a
>>> voting limit of one. The Intergalactic Associate Director of Personnel
>>> is the vote collector. PRESENT is always an available option. The
>>> following candidates are also available options, but they may decline
>>> the nomination at any time. For more details, see Rule 2154, Election
>>> Procedure.
>>>
>>> The candidates are: coppro, BobTHJ.
>>
>> I endorse coppro.
>>
> You're not an active player

Yes I am.

-- 
Charles Walker

Re: DIS: Notes on last automated action e-mail

[Charles Walker]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Roger Hicks  wrote:

> 3. Darth Cliche is being dealt 2 extra cards from the Deck of Change
> for eir previous registration (the Anarchist at the time was inactive
> and never dealt em cards before e mistakenly deregistered)

Proto: registration cards are only awarded for first registration.

-- 
Charles Walker

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Caste report

[Charles Walker]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:46 PM, ais523  wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 21:39 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> 2009/9/30 Geoffrey Spear :
>> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
>> >  wrote:
>> >> Now is an all-time low on stable voting limits (well, I haven't been
>> >> here for very long, so I'm not sure)! There is currently a total of 9
>> >> votes around!
>> >
>> > I'm intentionally holding off on this week's distribution until after
>> > the monthly caste reshuffling.
>> >
>> Coming up tomorrow morning. I can't see any honors list, have I missed
>> it or was there none?
>
> I'm not aware of one. But then, I have no idea who the Speaker is. After
> a multiple-win scam that involves lots of activation and inactivation,
> it tends to get rather muddled... Luckily, it's pragmatised; you can
> deduce it merely by watching activations and inactivations and the
> behaviour of the Herald. I'm not sure I want to though.

NttDF?

-- 
Charles Walker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: IBA Stuff

[Charles Walker]

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Roger Hicks  wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:48, Charles Walker
>  wrote:
>> I deposit 3 * X Crop for 300zm.
>
> This fails, you have no X crops to deposit.

comex, I believe your 'Ask Bob' finction is broken: BobTHJ's site
shows me with no X Crops but iba.qoid.us shows me with 5.


-- 
Charles Walker

DIS: Re: BUS: Card cleanout

[Charles Walker]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> I play Presto! on one of Walker's Discard Pickings.
> I play Discard Picking to gain Presto!
> I play Presto! on Walker's Discard Picking.

I spent both of my Discard Pickings recently. I'm not sure if this
affects anything.


-- 
Charles Walker

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Audit timing

[Charles Walker]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Roger Hicks  wrote:
> As of right now the way the rule is written gives the dealer
> performing the audit too much lee-way in determining who is audited
> (by transferring cards around in the same message as performing the
> audits).

As you are currently the only dealer, are you suggesting that you
might act in an underhand manner when performing audits? :P

-- 
Charles Walker

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora

[Charles Walker]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Roger Hicks  wrote:
> ais523
>   Majority Leader
> Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5

Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits.

-- 
Charles Walker

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora

[Charles Walker]

coppro wrote:
> Charles Walker wrote:
>> BobTHJ wrote:
>>>
>>> ais523
>>>  Majority Leader
>>> Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5
>>
>> Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits.
>>
> They do, however, BobTHJ's reports are somewhat misleading as they imply
> that hand limits are on a per-deck basis, which they are not. They apply to
> all decks universally.
>
> /me starts wondering if someone will bother NoVing em over it.

>From the Hand Limits Rule:

  Position Cards are not considered Cards for the purposes
  of this rule.

The Major Arcana Deck consists of only Position cards, so having
players' Hand Limits in the Herald report is pointless.

Semi-Related Proto: Make the Speaker a Card, which can be traded like
the other Major Arcana cards.

-- 
Charles Walker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Chamber (Caste Replacement)

[Charles Walker]

Murphy wrote:
> Walker wrote:
>
>>       Chamber is a proposal switch, possessed only by proposals which
>>       are in the proposal pool or have an ongoing Agoran Decision to
>>       adopt them, tracked by the Promotor, with values Green
>>       (default), Red and Purple. In the same message in which a player
>>       submits a proposal, e CAN set its Chamber by announcement;
>>       otherwise it is set to eir Title.
>
> Why these three colors in particular?  I suggest Yellow (default),
> Red and Blue, and renaming Title to State.

The colours are a reference to the three powers in UK parliament: the
House of Commons (which has green benches), the House of Lords (which
has red benches) and the Crown, which I thought was best represented
by Purple. I wouldn't necessarily be against a proposal to change
Purple to Blue, or any other colour, though.

-- 
Charles Walker

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Coauthor rewards

[Charles Walker]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Sean Hunt  wrote:
> Proposal: Coauthor rewards (AI=2, II=0)
> {{
> In R2261, replace
>      When a proposal authored by a player is adopted and takes
>      effect, that player earns a number of draws from the Change Deck
>      equal to the Interest Index of the proposal.
> with
>      When a proposal authored by a player is adopted and takes
>      effect, that player earns a number of draws from the Change Deck
>      equal to the Interest Index of the proposal and, if the proposal
>      was interested, its coauthors each earn one draw from the Change
>      Deck.

I suggest this wording:

When an interested proposal is adopted, its author earns a number of
draws from the Change Deck equal to the interest index of the
proposal, and the coauthors of the proposal who are players (if any)
earn one draw from the Change Deck each.

-- 
Charles Walker

DIS: AgoraHub

[Charles Walker]

I've made a modest little Google site to hold my Agora-related stuff.
To date, it only has my Ambassador report and a comprehensive list of
links to other Agoran sites, but I hope to expand it in the future.
It's at http://sites.google.com/site/agorahub/

-- 
Charles Walker

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flowers for Wooble

[Charles Walker]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Ed Murphy  wrote:
> If I have a Distrib-u-Matic, then I play it to make this proposal
> distributable.
>
> (If card recordkeeping isn't caught up soon, then I suggest a deputy
> Promotor distribute everything and plead for DISCHARGE if e thereby
> breaks Rule 1607.  Better that than a stagnant pool.)
>

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think it would be a lot
easier for the new Promotor to catch up on Distributability of you
stopped using conditional Distrib-u-matic spends.

-- 
Charles Walker

DIS: Re: BUS: Motion to Effect

[Charles Walker]

On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Sean Hunt  wrote:
> I initiate a Motion To Effect, specifying the following Rate List:
>
> Distrib-u-Matic: 55
>
> The eligible voters for this Motion are the parties to this contract, the
> voting period lasts for 72 hours, and the President is the Vote Collector.
> The possible options are FOR and AGAINST.

President c., when do you plan to resolve this motion?

-- 
Charles Walker

DIS: Re: BUS: [IBA] Report

[Charles Walker]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Charles Walker
 wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:45 PM, comex  wrote:
>> ===
>>
>> Industrial Bank & Agora Report

> CoE: You are missing my recent withdraws and deposits. Look for 'BUS:
> Various Actions'.

Specifically, these are the actions I took on October 18th:

I deposit 3 * WRV for 390zm.
I deposit one Kill Bill for 110zm.
I withdraw one Lobbyist for 110zm.
I withdraw one No Confidence for 55zm.

-- 
Charles Walker

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador] Foreign Relations

[Charles Walker]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Sean Hunt  wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Charles Walker
>  wrote:
>> Friendly        B Nomic
>>              (http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/B%20Nomic)
>
> I humbly request the Ambassador flip the Recognition of B Nomic to
> Sanctioned in light of eir near-success at a declaration of war.
>

I didn't try to declare war, I just gained a dictatorship and happened
to be Agora's Ambassador.

I am working on a proposal which will flip B's recognition, though.

-- 
Charles Walker

DIS: Re: BUS: The Make Someone Happy Contest

[Charles Walker]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Sean Hunt  wrote:
> I've a new experiment to try:
>
> {{
>
> This is a Public Equitable pledge named "Happy Times"
>
> If this contract is a contest, its contestmaster SHALL award points if
> and as e sees fit, but CANNOT award them to emself. Otherwise, all
> parties SHALL endeavour to make it into a contest.
>
> If this contract is a Champion's Contest, its contestmaster SHALL
> transfer this contest's Medals away to parties if and as e sees fit,
> but CANNOT transfer them to emself.
>
> Any player CAN join or leave this contract by announcement.
>
> }}
>
> I agree to Happy Times.
>
> I intend, without 3 objections, to flip the contestmaster of Happy
> Times to myself.

I think this would be more interesting is you didn't have the 'as e
sees fit', and instead there was some equity court-enforcible standard
for awarding the points.

Also, I've always wanted to see a Legalistic contest which was its own
contestmaster. Is that possible under the current Rules?

-- 
Charles Walker

Re: DIS: Bills of Attainder

[Charles Walker]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:27 AM, comex  wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Taral  wrote:
>> They suck. That is all.

-- 
Charles Walker

Re: DIS: A different rule-making game that might be of interest.

[Charles Walker]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
 wrote:
> A friend on an RPG forum wrote this, and I felt that I should share it
> with nomicers. The only ones I know are the Agorans and the Bns (and
> I'm not even very active there anymore), so here you go. It's about a
> game mentioned by name and described only as "being about creating and
> interpreting the game while you play it" in a swedish fantasy RPG. I
> translated it into English but I can't think of a good name for the
> game. In Swedish it's called "Smickelbräde". The "-bräde" part simply
> means that it's a game played with a board, but noone seems to know
> what writers of the original RPG where the name appeared first meant
> with the "smickel-" part, since it's not really a word. In this text
> it's called the game of Ideas, but that's just because I needed
> something other than  to allow you to read it.
> Hope you like it.

I've been thinking for a while about setting up a contest which is a
nomic or is nomic-like, which would reset when someone won it. This
could be a good basis for that. The First Speaker emself had some
related ideas: http://axiom.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html

-- 
Charles Walker

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Punish Walker

[Charles Walker]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Aaron Goldfein  wrote:
> With this mild punishment, e may learn that such annoying actions are
> not within the spirit of the game.

Do you seriously think this is in the spirit of the game?

-- 
Charles Walker

Re: DIS: A different rule-making game that might be of interest.

[Charles Walker]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:31 PM, comex  wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Sean Hunt  wrote:
>>> I've been thinking for a while about setting up a contest which is a
>>> nomic or is nomic-like, which would reset when someone won it. This
>>> could be a good basis for that. The First Speaker emself had some
>>> related ideas:
>>> http://axiom.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html
>>>
>> FRC.
>
> BlogNomic.

I mean a nomic within a nomic. Read Micheal's manifesto.

-- 
Charles Walker

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 6533-6541

[Charles Walker]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, ais523  wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 20:13 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> 6537  0   1.0  Walker              R2215 Fix
> PRESENT; what would this do?

Correct a grammar/ spelling mistake?

-- 
Charles Walker

DIS: Re: BUS: Decruft Speed

[Charles Walker]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Roger Hicks  wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:18, Charles Walker
>  wrote:
>> For each of the following proposals, I intend, without 3 objections,
>> to make it Distributable:
>>
>> Anarchy Anarchy
>
> I object
>
>> Abduct the Aliens
>
> I object
>
>> Invasion Alert Level Green
>
> I object
>
>> End of the Accountor
>
> I object

I can understand some of these objections, but why are you against
repealing a Rule which has only an unused definition in it?

-- 
Charles Walker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Decruft Speed

[Charles Walker]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Roger Hicks  wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:25, Charles Walker
>  wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Roger Hicks  wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:18, Charles Walker
>>>  wrote:
>>>> For each of the following proposals, I intend, without 3 objections,
>>>> to make it Distributable:
>>>>
>>>> Anarchy Anarchy
>>>
>>> I object
>>>
>>>> Abduct the Aliens
>>>
>>> I object
>>>
>>>> Invasion Alert Level Green
>>>
>>> I object
>>>
>>>> End of the Accountor
>>>
>>> I object
>>
>> I can understand some of these objections, but why are you against
>> repealing a Rule which has only an unused definition in it?
>>
> I thought it was a useful definition, even if it is currently unusued.

How can something that isn't used possibly be useful?

-- 
Charles Walker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Decruft Speed

[Charles Walker]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
 wrote:
> 2009/10/22 Roger Hicks :
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:38, Charles Walker
>>  wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Roger Hicks  wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:25, Charles Walker
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I can understand some of these objections, but why are you against
>>>>> repealing a Rule which has only an unused definition in it?
>>>>>
>>>> I thought it was a useful definition, even if it is currently unusued.
>>>
>>> How can something that isn't used possibly be useful?
>>>
>> Hey, no one said my reasoning had to be logical :)
>>
>> BobTHJ
>>
> Oh, but it is. The key word is 'currently'.

Well, lets repeal it now, and if you ever think of something special
to do with it, feel free to bring it back.

-- 
Charles Walker