On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Aaron Goldfein
wrote:
> Proposal: Okay, you're not playing anymore (AI = 2)
>
> Change the text of Rule 2130 (Activity) that reads:
>
> A player who has been continuously Inactive for at least three
> months CAN be deregistered by any other player without
> object
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Aaron Goldfein
wrote:
> Proposal: Fixing Rule 2150 Bug (AI = 3, II = 0):
>
> As Rule 2150 goes on to further disambiguate between biological persons and
> non-biological persons, it seems inaccurate to reference ALL persons as
> being strictly biological.
>
> Chan
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I CFJ on the following sentence. If a legal voter votes to endorse an
> officer, but, after the casting of the original voter's vote and before the
> resolution of the decision, the holder of that office changes, then the
> voter has endorse
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Aaron Goldfein
>> wrote:
>> > Yes it does. Schrodinger's Cat is the longest name of any first-class
>> > player. It's annoying as far as the Regis
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> > Yes it does. Schrodinger's Cat is the longest name of any first-class
> > player. It's annoying as far as the Registrar's report is concerned.
>
> Tom's is longer.
>
> -root
>
I'm st
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Yes it does. Schrodinger's Cat is the longest name of any first-class
> player. It's annoying as far as the Registrar's report is concerned.
Tom's is longer.
-root
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
> > 2009/4/14 Schrodinger's Cat :
> >> I object.
> >>
> >> --
> >> -- Schrodinger's Cat
> >
> > I wish inactives would stop objecting to their inactivation.
>
> Why? Their presence doesn't
On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 22:54 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/4/14 comex :
> > [Repeal partnerships. Repeal playership and fall back to activity;
> > everyone is a player. This allows a more natural entrance to the
> > game. It's radical, but nomic is all about challenging the
> > traditional no
2009/4/14 comex :
> [Repeal partnerships. Repeal playership and fall back to activity;
> everyone is a player. This allows a more natural entrance to the
> game. It's radical, but nomic is all about challenging the
> traditional notion of a game: why can't everyone be a player?]
>
Hello, I have
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I wish inactives would stop objecting to their inactivation.
>
> Why? Their presence doesn't affect anything. If it does, it's probably a
> bug.
Well, objecting to deactivation affects the quorum. Objecting to
*deregistration* doesn't affec
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> 2009/4/14 Schrodinger's Cat :
>> I object.
>>
>> --
>> -- Schrodinger's Cat
>
> I wish inactives would stop objecting to their inactivation.
Why? Their presence doesn't affect anything. If it does, it's probably a bug.
-root
2009/4/14 Schrodinger's Cat :
> I object.
>
> --
> -- Schrodinger's Cat
I wish inactives would stop objecting to their inactivation.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > The outcome is FAILED QUORUM; the voting period is doubled.
>> >
>> I vote Yally.
>>
> I vote PRESENT. (Disclaimer: I don't know if this succeeds.)
PRESENT is not a valid option because the election decision does not
have an adoption index.
On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 15:09 -0400, Schrodinger's Cat wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to deregister Schrodinger's Cat
> for inactivity.
>
> -Yally
>
> I object.
If you like, become active then
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The elimination of the special case was intentional, and pointed out
> (albeit briefly) in a comment within the proposal:
>
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-October/015346.html
Off-topic: Argh! Will that
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I vote PRESENT. (Disclaimer: I don't know if this succeeds.)
It doesn't; the valid options are the active players who accepted and
didn't refuse their nominations.
On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 13:47 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Geoffrey Spear
> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> > Protection Racket 01 Feb 09
> > Reformed Bank of Agora 01 Feb 09
>
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 20:24 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> > 2009/4/14 Geoffrey Spear :
> > > I deputize for the IADoP to resolve the Agoran Decision to choose the
> > > holder of the IADoP office.
> > >
> > > The votes are:
> > >
> > > coppro
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> > Protection Racket 01 Feb 09
> > Reformed Bank of Agora 01 Feb 09
>
> CoE: the Protection Racket and RBoA aren't Players.
>
I wouldn't know. It was in Taral's report and
Wooble wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:17 AM, comex wrote:
>> By the way, have we actually been taking quorum into account in
>> elections? At the moment an election with more than one option is
>> subject to all the usual, including voting period extension and
>> failing quorum.
>
> I cert
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Protection Racket 01 Feb 09
> Reformed Bank of Agora 01 Feb 09
CoE: the Protection Racket and RBoA aren't Players.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:17 AM, comex wrote:
> By the way, have we actually been taking quorum into account in
> elections? At the moment an election with more than one option is
> subject to all the usual, including voting period extension and
> failing quorum.
I certainly wasn't; I missed th
On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 22:15 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Did ais523 actually win by Legislation last September/October? Murphy's
> page has em listed as a winner, but the Assessor's report says the
> proposal never passed.
Yes. There were lots of Assessor's reports on the issue flying around,
and a l
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Create a new power-2 rule with the following text:
> {{
> The quorum of an Agoran Decision on whether to adopt a proposal is the
> value specified by Rule 879, increased by that proposal's Interest
> Index. This rule supersedes Rule 879.
> }}
>
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Create a new power-2 rule with the following text:
> {{
> The quorum of an Agoran Decision on whether to adopt a proposal is the
> value specified by Rule 879, increased by that proposal's Interest
> Index. This rule supersedes Rule 879.
> }}
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
