On Thursday 15 November 2007 22:56:26 Levi Stephen wrote:
> Was that this one:
>
>With 2 SUPPORT, any player may be forcibly deregistered. This support may
>only come from first-class players that existed November 12, 2007.
> Levi
>
I retracted that and added "Only players that joined
On Nov 16, 2007 3:58 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend with Agoran Consent to cause Agora to unconditionally
> surrender to B Nomic.
I will OBJECT to this in just under 4 days...
-root
comex wrote:
Proposal: Urgent Actions (AI=2)
Amend Rule 1728 by replacing item (f) of the list in that rule with:
(f) The vote collector of such a decision CANNOT resolve it if
it was initiated more than fourteen days ago, or less than
its urgency index ago.
Indices a
On Friday 16 November 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I highly doubt this could be used to sneak anything through. 24 hours
> still allows plenty of time for someone to object.
Notice how both people who responded to Goethe's response are B players.
This is awfully fishy...
signature.asc
Description
On Nov 16, 2007 3:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is either useful, or a blatant attempt to sneak a short-fused
> action (like surrender) through. I don't trust it. At all. I
> suggest that comex refrain from posting proposals involving war
> while advocating war among our
On Friday 16 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This is either useful, or a blatant attempt to sneak a short-fused
> action (like surrender) through. I don't trust it. At all. I
> suggest that comex refrain from posting proposals involving war
> while advocating war among our neighbors. -Goeth
This is either useful, or a blatant attempt to sneak a short-fused
action (like surrender) through. I don't trust it. At all. I
suggest that comex refrain from posting proposals involving war
while advocating war among our neighbors. -Goethe
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> Proposal: Urge
On Nov 16, 2007 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I looked back at old Points Contest rules while drafting this. Before,
> we basically limited scams by saying basing points awards on # of players,
> and making incremental awards small enough that a pure "I award points
> to you"
On Nov 16, 2007 2:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 7xAGAINST. Doesn't fix the win scam (or do I misunderstand purpose of this?}
This was the explanation I gave when I submitted the proposal but did
not include in it:
> The previous case was also intended to demonstrate that the
>
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I'm starting to think that the without-objections approval and
> disintegration processes are just overkill. We've never required it
> for contests before, and there haven't been any problems that couldn't
> be avoided by better-written rules.
I looked b
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> You could still do it. Have one contract be the mini-nomic, and have
> another contract be the contest that awards points when the first
> contract tells it to. Actually, this demonstrates that the regulation
> I envisioned doesn't work anyway. Might as w
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
>> When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators' postures
>> become supine, and non-Senators may not flip their posture
>> while the session lasts.
>
> Any reason not to make this CANNOT?
Goethe SHOULD remember to use MMI
On Nov 15, 2007 7:17 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should we decide to take over B nomic via flooding them with members, we must
> do so quickly. Proposal 176 of B nomic reads as follows:
I don't think that one is going to pass.
BobTHJ
Levi wrote:
It just occured to me that another possible hole is that I could, with
two other senators, control the game by continually declaring emergency
sessions and filibuster on all proposals except our own.
But three other senators could just de-filibuster them, and filibuster
yours, so
Goethe wrote:
When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators' postures
become supine, and non-Senators may not flip their posture
while the session lasts.
Any reason not to make this CANNOT?
Levi wrote:
comex wrote:
Levi, you going to support or object to his attempt to join the AFO?
Undecided so far :)
Any thoughts on pros/cons of an extra member for the AFO?
I'm happy to support if both you and Murphy do. I notice you did
already, not in the public forum but I believe that
On 11/16/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >Oh fine, I SUPPORT the triply-quoted intent.
>
> NttPF.
Doesn't need to be (I think). See the precedent with judicial panels.
On 11/16/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um, how would you write that? If a scam does something illegal,
> it's already covered. If a scam uses a loophole, it's perfectly
> legal, and therefore using the term "scam" only speaks to motives...
> how do we assess motives?
Simple.
Adop
On 11/16/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Funnily enough, I wonder if this is too broad. "hostile action" could be
> any scam. How about "hostile action by another nomic"? -Goethe
A rule forbidding scams would be interesting.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> On 11/16/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Funnily enough, I wonder if this is too broad. "hostile action" could be
>> any scam. How about "hostile action by another nomic"? -Goethe
>
> A rule forbidding scams would be interesting.
Um, how would
On Nov 16, 2007 8:53 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 2007 7:17 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Should we decide to take over B nomic via flooding them with members, we
> >> must
> >> do so quickly. Proposa
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2007 7:17 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Should we decide to take over B nomic via flooding them with members, we must
>> do so quickly. Proposal 176 of B nomic reads as follows:
>
> I don't think that one is going to pass.
>
On 11/16/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arguments: I contributed no text, had no wish to be associated
> with it, and generally do not fit any definition of coauthorship.
Gratuitous: Goethe's name was not spelled correctly in the statement
of coauthorship in the proposal.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Funnily enough, I wonder if this is too broad. "hostile action" could be
any scam. How about "hostile action by another nomic"? -Goethe
That's a good point. I made a choice to leave out the 'by another nomic' clause
as I thought it provided a loophole (e.g., our game's no
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> Proposal: Contests Fix Mk II
> {{{
> Geothe is a co-author of this proposal.
I deny coauthorship of this proposal. I don't like it.
-Goethe
---
Proto: Rubicon
Enact a rule entitled "The Senate" with the following text and a
power of 2:
A Senator is any Player who has been registered continuously for
the immediately preceding thirty days. The collection
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> A Senator is any Player who has been registered continuously for
> the immediately preceding thirty days.
This should be longer. I suggest 100 days.
-zefram
comex wrote:
>Oh fine, I SUPPORT the triply-quoted intent.
NttPF.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>A judge who finds a player guilty of breaking this
>Rule SHALL award the guilty party the patent title Traitor.
No mechanism.
-zefram
I'm not sure increasing quorum is the appropriate measure. I think Rule 2168
would just double the voting period.
It would double, then still fail because quorum was impossible to achieve.
Not perfect, I know! Least complex way I could find.
Ah yes, it would work. I was thinking there was
by the way, I was serious about defining "traitor" as "anyone that is
a member of another nomic who votes FOR or makes a proposal FOR hostile
action against Agora." And punishing by deregistration.
I like this sort of idea. Might be better to leave it to the judicial system to
decide punish
31 matches
Mail list logo
