On 01/11/2010 05:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Quorum has, in all my play, never once been used for actual vote
manipulation.
Well I did late month for the court case... I remember a period of play
(back in the hazy 2002-2004 period) where the speaker had this power and
used it lots (part of bringi
On 01/11/2010 05:34 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Also, I think I'll tackle judicial reform this week. That section of
the rules is a mess.
What do you have in mind? I may as well get a head start pondering
possible code revisions.
No clue. I've even been playing with the idea of throwing out the ide
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, comex wrote:
> But not announce what the fee is?
Full confession: "Fees" is stolen directly from R1941/1-3 (it's all right, I
wrote part of it :) ). Collective wisdom was, like maxivote, it was better/
convenient to let people just say "I pay the fee to do X" and have it
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> To perform a fee-based action, a Player (the Actor) who is
> otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e
> is performing the action and announce that there is a fee for
> that action.
But not announce wha
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
>> Also, I think I'll tackle judicial reform this week. That section of
>> the rules is a mess.
>
> What do you have in mind? I may as well get a head start pondering
> possible code revisions.
If you reset rests so I don't have to catch up
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> The Power Station Manager (PSM) is a high-priority office and the
>
> We don't have high-priority offices any more. If memory serves, we
> told you this last time you proposed a major change.
In my defense I actually knew that here:
>> P f
coppro wrote:
>> Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions, power-2:
>>
>> - A player CAN increase eir voting limit on a specified
>>decision to adopt a proposal in its voting period by 2Q, by
>>paying a fee of Q, provided this does not increase eir
>>voting limit a
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Proto: new system
> [Keeps major arcana, puts in basic fee-based system]
>
> Create the following rule, Energy, power-2:
>
> Ergs are a class of fixed assets and a measure of each Player's
> energy; to increase or decrease an entity
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Ergs are a class of fixed assets and a measure of each Player's
>> energy; to increase or decrease an entity's energy is to change
>> the number of ergs in eir possession. Ownership of Ergs is
>> restricted to players.
>
> Let's get
> Ergs are a class of fixed assets and a measure of each Player's
> energy; to increase or decrease an entity's energy is to change
> the number of ergs in eir possession. Ownership of Ergs is
> restricted to players.
Let's get the basic framework into place first, but
G. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, ais523 wrote:
>> Wasn't there a proto a while back to call them persimmons? It was meant
>> as an anti-scam feature, but it might be more interesting as a basis for
>> an economy. Probably we should start off with just one type of them, but
>> if it's a success pro
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Title: Minister without Portfolio.
> Position: The Minister without Portfolio CAN become holder of a
> specified vacant elected office by announcement, unless e is
> prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.
W
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions, power-2:
First comment: forgot to put in expunging Rests at a fee of 2 per rest.
Will fix in next one.
-G.
c. wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Whups, ignore that! Wrong proposal. So my other question: the CFJs didn't
>> explicitly CoE on prop 6583, which is required to stop self-ratification, so
>> did it self-ratify or was there a CoE? In case: CoE: the voting resul
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, ais523 wrote:
>> Wasn't there a proto a while back to call them persimmons? It was meant
>> as an anti-scam feature, but it might be more interesting as a basis for
>> an economy. Probably we should start off with just on
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> One thing I've been pondering for a while is if we should reinstate
> the Speaker as being a real leader in Agora?
Any time someone says that I'll vote for it.
-G.
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, ais523 wrote:
> Wasn't there a proto a while back to call them persimmons? It was meant
> as an anti-scam feature, but it might be more interesting as a basis for
> an economy. Probably we should start off with just one type of them, but
> if it's a success probably we'll end
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I would wholeheartedly support a full repeal of cards. Once cards
> come to a halt due to uncertainty/lack of reports its hell to get them
> started again.
>
> I suggest going to simple action points model to start.
> Every player has N non
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 11:56 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I would wholeheartedly support a full repeal of cards. Once cards
> come to a halt due to uncertainty/lack of reports its hell to get them
> started again.
>
> I suggest going to simple action points model to start.
> Every player has N non-
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 14:41 -0500, comex wrote:
>> Whether or not Crumbling Fountain passed, the Dealor's report hasn't
>> been published, nor any card plays or IBA transactions performed, in
>> nearly a month, and even if someone volunteered to be Dealor, the
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 14:41 -0500, comex wrote:
> Whether or not Crumbling Fountain passed, the Dealor's report hasn't
> been published, nor any card plays or IBA transactions performed, in
> nearly a month, and even if someone volunteered to be Dealor, the game
> really isn't active enough now to
Whether or not Crumbling Fountain passed, the Dealor's report hasn't
been published, nor any card plays or IBA transactions performed, in
nearly a month, and even if someone volunteered to be Dealor, the game
really isn't active enough now to sustain Cards. I don't know if
there's any advantage to
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Whups, ignore that! Wrong proposal. So my other question: the CFJs didn't
> explicitly CoE on prop 6583, which is required to stop self-ratification, so
> did it self-ratify or was there a CoE? In case: CoE: the voting results
> for proposa
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Don't c.'s judgements of 2755-56 imply that Crumbling Fountain
> passed after all?
Do they? (For what it's worth, I didn't remember that those cases had
anything to do with my proposal when I judged them.)
--
-c.
G. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Sgeo wrote:
>> How possibly would it be for even a smallish invasion force to invade?
>> Are most players still at least reading the emails, despite not
>> contributing? If not, then a much smaller invasion force is a much
>> greater threat than usual.
>
> Even du
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
>> Do you realise that Agora had never been invaded?
>
> False. I invaded from B years ago. Unfortunately, the rest of B's
> players didn't join in the planned invasion.
The UNDEAD could arguab
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Do you realise that Agora had never been invaded?
False. I invaded from B years ago. Unfortunately, the rest of B's
players didn't join in the planned invasion.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2010, Sgeo wrote:
>> How possibly would it be for even a smallish invasion force to invade?
>> Are most players still at least reading the emails, despite not
>> contributing? If not, then a much smaller invasion force
On Monday, January 11, 2010, Sgeo wrote:
> How possibly would it be for even a smallish invasion force to invade?
> Are most players still at least reading the emails, despite not
> contributing? If not, then a much smaller invasion force is a much
> greater threat than usual.
Do you realise that
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Sgeo wrote:
> How possibly would it be for even a smallish invasion force to invade?
> Are most players still at least reading the emails, despite not
> contributing? If not, then a much smaller invasion force is a much
> greater threat than usual.
Even during the lull we cou
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Sgeo wrote:
> How possibly would it be for even a smallish invasion force to invade?
> Are most players still at least reading the emails, despite not
> contributing? If not, then a much smaller invasion force is a much
> greater threat than usual.
Very easy. We
How possibly would it be for even a smallish invasion force to invade?
Are most players still at least reading the emails, despite not
contributing? If not, then a much smaller invasion force is a much
greater threat than usual.
32 matches
Mail list logo
