On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 01/12/2010 11:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>>
>>> A thought: Because all ergs are destroyed each week, it makes no sense
>>> for the
>>> PSM to have to publish a report once a week.
>>
>> I was thinki
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> These should all be charges of ergs, not fees (no semantic reason, it's just
> an
> extension of the metaphor).
Ooh, good one.
> Making Rest destruction be 1 erg seems low; that means even the most basic of
> players can abolish 4 of eir own Rests per w
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 01/12/2010 11:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> A thought: Because all ergs are destroyed each week, it makes no sense for
>>> the
>>> PSM to have to publish a report once a week.
>>
>> I was thinking it was useful t
On 01/12/2010 11:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
An attempt to performed a fee-based action is also implicitly a
claim to be in possession of sufficient ergs to perform the
action, and such a claim is self-ratifying. If the claim is
erroneous but self-ratifies, then the act
On 01/12/2010 11:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
A thought: Because all ergs are destroyed each week, it makes no sense for the
PSM to have to publish a report once a week.
I was thinking it was useful to publish a list of spending (e.g. actions
performed in th
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Title: Minister without Portfolio.
>
>
> Title: Majority Leader.
And yes I just caught the little cut/no paste vanishing act here...
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> A thought: Because all ergs are destroyed each week, it makes no sense for
> the
> PSM to have to publish a report once a week.
I was thinking it was useful to publish a list of spending (e.g. actions
performed in the prior week). But maybe that's not hu
On 01/12/2010 11:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
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's energy is to change
the number of ergs in eir possession. Ownership of Ergs is
Proto: new system v0.2
[Keeps major arcana, puts in basic fee-based system]
[Took all the wording/bug fix suggestions. Under the principle of
"minimizing amount of change in a given overhaul" (yes I learned my
lesson from Cards) I've left the major arcana positions, leadership
tokens, etc. as
On 01/12/2010 04:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Kremlin
You, sir, win a cookie.
/me prepares for the Winning Condition of Waving
-coppro
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> - The requirement on the entire Government being Champions is pretty
> lame. Perhaps one or two positions should be held exclusively by
> non-Champions.
I like all these ideas in general I'll just comment here: I think the
idea of a "list" ranking (and mov
I'd like to propose some reform whereby we put the Speaker once again
at the forefront of Agoran affairs. I'd like to get a general idea of
what might happen before I get into legislation (also, that two or
three other major reforms may attempt to happen at the same time, and
that would be Bad).
H
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I think this is too harsh and also too permissive. Most often, this
> will happen by mistake, and if pointed out within a few days, it's better
> to just call it a null-op. It's too permissive in that, if at any time
> we count on high fees t
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> - If a player purports to pay a fee, and e CANNOT do so only by reason of
> having too few ergs, the action takes place anyways and all eir ergs
> are destroyed. This is platonic.
> - After it's discovered, the player gains two Resistors. This is Pragmat
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Hmm, I think that whole paragraph was early (the first?) self-ratification
>> before self-ratification existed; just making it self-ratifying would work
>> partly. But part of this was to specify that if
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> We need some type of system, as not all points of confusion are
> settled via discussion leading to mutual agreement. Outsourcing
> it to a contract could be interesting, though...
>
Also, this gave me an idea about the fees' self-ratifications
Wooble wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Self-ratification goes back at least as far as Rule 352:
>>
>> http://agora.qoid.us/rule/352
>>
>> Not less than once a week, the Speaker shall post the current
>> scores of all Players to the mailing lists, making hi
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
>> 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
>>> possib
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Hmm, I think that whole paragraph was early (the first?) self-ratification
> before self-ratification existed; just making it self-ratifying would work
> partly. But part of this was to specify that if this happened, we at
> least zeroed out
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Self-ratification goes back at least as far as Rule 352:
>
> http://agora.qoid.us/rule/352
>
> Not less than once a week, the Speaker shall post the current
> scores of all Players to the mailing lists, making his best
> efforts t
coppro wrote:
> 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
G. wrote:
> Hmm, I think that whole paragraph was early (the first?) self-ratification
> before self-ratification existed;
Self-ratification goes back at least as far as Rule 352:
http://agora.qoid.us/rule/352
Not less than once a week, the Speaker shall post the current
scores of a
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 17:13 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > Title: Cabinet Secretary.
> > Position: the Cabinet Secretary CAN rubberstamp an ordinary,
> > non-filibustered decision in its voting period by indicating the
> > decision; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the cont
23 matches
Mail list logo
