On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ah yes. I don't promise to get caught up for a few days, but I assume the
> office of Herald (and will try). I think Herald work is a little behind,
> if there are any pressing tasks someone wants to bring to my attention,
> I'll focus on thos
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 06:38, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 15:35 -0400, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> >
>
> Note to the PSM: I'm waiting on your report to process the Referee
> report at the moment; because it seems very likely that there's been a
> Team split this week, it would help to have
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> When an officer becomes inactive, all of eir offices become Assumed.
> Anyone can assume the office, and even immediately resign it if it
> seems likely that things will get done by deputization more
> efficiently when the office is empty.
F
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:25 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 12:21 -0400, Warrigal wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Keba wrote:
>> > I endorse Wooble (just for the endorse-chain, I don't care about the
>> > website very much)
>>
>> Sure. I endorse Keba.
>
> You lot do all real
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> Well, one of our stated purposes is to allow players to accumulate
> power. How do you propose that this be accomplished?
You're probably going to need to propose watts as a currency. Or
perhaps microwatts, considering the tiny amounts of energy
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It strikes me that when an officer ends up unresigned and inactive, the
> office gets stuck. Is this right currently? Should we amend deputisation
> to allow for inactive offices, not just vacant? (and are there other places
> to add same, e
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Keba wrote:
> Hm, I like the weekly destroying of ergs and capacitors, because I like
> the way the current economy works, so I am against a manual destroying.
Well, one of our stated purposes is to allow players to accumulate
power. How do you propose that this b
Warrigal wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
> > I think that could be accomplished by making capacitors a bit more
> > accumulable. Are they tradeable, for example? I'd say up the price for
> > creating them out of ergs, and instead make it so that they don't
> > aut
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 12:21 -0400, Warrigal wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Keba wrote:
> > I endorse Wooble (just for the endorse-chain, I don't care about the
> > website very much)
>
> Sure. I endorse Keba.
You lot do all realise that the decision in question doesn't exist due
to ha
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> I think that could be accomplished by making capacitors a bit more
> accumulable. Are they tradeable, for example? I'd say up the price for
> creating them out of ergs, and instead make it so that they don't
> automatically go back to erg fo
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 08:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> proto-proto: An endorsement chain of N or longer, if intact after the
> voting period ends (and the first voter casts an unconditional valid
> vote) is, for the persons on either end of the chain (but no one in
> the middle) the Winning Co
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 11:04 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> > wrote:
> > > On 3 September 2010 03:28, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > >> I vote for #2.
> > > I endorse Murphy.
> > I endorse Tiger.
>
> Has creating long
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 11:04 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
> > On 3 September 2010 03:28, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> I vote for #2.
> > I endorse Murphy.
> I endorse Tiger.
Has creating long endorse chains for the sake of it become the new
voti
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:35 AM, ais523 wrote:
> First, we have to deal with a potential bug in the proposal itself; it
> attempts to create a rule, but does not specify its power. However, it
> seems reasonable to assume that the rule is created at power 1; although
> nowhere in the rules is a def
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 06:51 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, ais523 wrote:
> > First, we have to deal with a potential bug in the proposal itself; it
> > attempts to create a rule, but does not specify its power. However, it
> > seems reasonable to assume that the rule is created at
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, ais523 wrote:
> First, we have to deal with a potential bug in the proposal itself; it
> attempts to create a rule, but does not specify its power. However, it
> seems reasonable to assume that the rule is created at power 1; although
> nowhere in the rules is a default power
On 3 September 2010 04:05, Warrigal wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> I am, though I'm not sure of what I have to offer the FSCN.
>
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Keba wrote:
>> I would like to join, as I like team play.
>
> Well, then, you're in. I hereby i
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 15:35 -0400, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>
Note to the PSM: I'm waiting on your report to process the Referee
report at the moment; because it seems very likely that there's been a
Team split this week, it would help to have an up-to-date reference to
work from sufficiently before
18 matches
Mail list logo
