On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>> If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes back
>> and wants eir post
>
> I think splitting the "assigner" and the "recordkeepor" is a good split to
> keep, whether informally or
IMHO, the current informal system of gratuitous arguments work fine; I see
little point in assigning someone the job of arguing for a particular side when
we have plenty of arguments for both sides (assuming there is some hope of both
sides being correct).
Gaelan
> On May 30, 2017, at 6:39 PM,
On Tue, 30 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G. comes back
> and wants eir post
I think splitting the "assigner" and the "recordkeepor" is a good split to
keep, whether informally or formally (I plan to keep up the recordkeeping
for a bit, anyway)
I didn’t mean that minute, I just meant in general. This is one of my problems
with email, it is interpreted as quick, but really it is more equivalent to fax
or memos than phone calls.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 8:40 PM, Aris
On May 30, 2017 7:39 PM, "Aris Merchant"
wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:21 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I like the idea of a public defender, but their salary should be paid by
> the callers.
Agreed. We should have fees for cases (a
I will in a few hours, but I really do have to go right now.
-Aris
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:37 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Could you share what is involved in your Massive Reform Plan and how you
> would allow others to help?
>
>
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:21 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I like the idea of a public defender, but their salary should be paid by
> the callers.
Agreed. We should have fees for cases (although Agora can pay if someone
can't), which shou
Could you share what is involved in your Massive Reform Plan and how you would
allow others to help?
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:28 PM Publius Scribonius Schola
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:28 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> How would people feel about reimplementing a formal criminal and civil
> court system in addition to CFJs?
Some version of that is already part 3 of my Massive Reform Plan (it's
n
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:25 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I think normal threading handles voting fine (and subject changes may
> break threads, making more of a mess). I agree about tagging the others.
>
That's what I was going to discuss later. In brief, marking pends would
only be required if in
How would people feel about reimplementing a formal criminal and civil court
system in addition to CFJs?
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 8:27 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
>
> Actually what could be interesting is
Actually what could be interesting is make a system of solicitor and defender,
in which the caller pends it, then the solicitor argues for FALSE, defender for
TRUE, then the judge decides.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 8:25 PM,
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:07 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines)
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 30 May
I think normal threading handles voting fine (and subject changes may break
threads, making more of a mess). I agree about tagging the others.
Gaelan
> On May 30, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On May
Tags would be very helpful for sorting.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 8:07 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines)
> wrote:
>
>
> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie" wrote:
> On Tu
I like the idea of a public defender, but their salary should be paid by the
callers.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 7:59 PM, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie" wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at
On May 30, 2017 7:07 PM, "Aris Merchant"
wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines)
wrote:
>
>
> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie" wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > I'll let ais523 comment on
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines)
wrote:
>
>
> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie" wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>>
>> (f
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines)
wrote:
>
>
> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie" wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>>
>> (f
On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie" wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>
> (final?) followup: I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
> (both o
I think in general, we should try and lessen the need for officers and increase
the number of non-tracked concepts and/or self-tracking concepts.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 7:25 PM, Quazie wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>
> (final?) followup: I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
> (both on the principle and as a 'too much work for
On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
(final?) followup: I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
(both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
We purposefully built a lot of flexibility
On Tue, 30 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I don't see why the pre-case formatting work is needed. The only
> difference is that ais would need to wait 2 days before assigning
> the ID/judge (and take into account any BUS replies to the CFJ).
> At the end of the day, however, if this will caus
I don't see why the pre-case formatting work is needed. The only difference is
that ais would need to wait 2 days before assigning the ID/judge (and take into
account any BUS replies to the CFJ). At the end of the day, however, if this
will cause some additional work on behalf of the officers, t
On Tue, 30 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > On May 30, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > It wasn't clear. But being stuck with a CFJ you don't want is part of the
> > job and random draw of being a judge, helping to clear the load. (we
> > should definitely have judicial compen
> On May 30, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> It wasn't clear. But being stuck with a CFJ you don't want is part of the
> job and random draw of being a judge, helping to clear the load. (we
> should definitely have judicial compensation/salaries though).
I disagree:
- The lack of
On Tue, 30 May 2017, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> What about an analogous pending system for CFJs? Anyone can submit but
> they only get assigned to a judge after someone has paid the fee. The
> fee should be low and stable. The judge gets paid the fee upon
> judgment. Even 2 shinies is probably en
What about an analogous pending system for CFJs? Anyone can submit but they
only get assigned to a judge after someone has paid the fee. The fee should
be low and stable. The judge gets paid the fee upon judgment. Even 2
shinies is probably enough to slow tge pace down without stopping it, and
beca
On Tue, 30 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I don't know if this was clear, but the intent of the proposal was
> to avoid people getting "stuck" with CFJs they don't wish to judge.
> Under this proposal, the only people bothered by a frivolous CFJ
> are ais523 and anyone interested in judging
I don't know if this was clear, but the intent of the proposal was to avoid
people getting "stuck" with CFJs they don't wish to judge. Under this proposal,
the only people bothered by a frivolous CFJ are ais523 and anyone interested in
judging (assuming others don't mind skipping over the DIS me
I might be in favor of a change such as`CFJs SHOULD be initiated in a newly
named thread, beginning with [CFJ]` so fewer CFJs get `lost`
That might make things easier to get a small handle on?
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 1:48 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Since I mentioned it in a recent message, tho
Since I mentioned it in a recent message, thought I'd offer some
specific comments.
When I had the whole Arbitor job (assign and report), the largest
obstacle was formatting the cases at the beginning (collecting them
into a big case log and formatting the random conversations into
arguments, be
I think we've found a couple of holes in the current ruleset that need
patching (I personally have a list of 6 proposals that should go in)
I think we've found a couple of places we have some issues:
1 - Maybe we are overworking our officers.
2 - We have many registered players that have made no a
Erm, funny phrasing given a lack of something is the opposite of a mess :).
But if that's the understanding, no worries!
I'm concerned at jumping to reforms; for example, the judicial reform proposal
IMO seems to be the opposite of reform, by imposing a bunch of structure
that won't actually he
I feel like 'No game play' is a valid mess to be cleaned up.
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Um, can you specify what "messes" you see that are actually needing clean
> up by
> rules changes, rather than just being a bit of high-traffic and new player
> assimilation?
>
I think expanding the economy with a stock market is the best course of action
right now.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> Um, can you specify what "messes" you see that are actually needing cl
I agree we need something to do, but maybe we need a base proposal that we
all agree on before we have a competition towards making that thing better.
It seems valid to 'clean up the mess' by giving us something to do (So I
don't feel like my new proposal competition suggestion blocks an academic
Um, can you specify what "messes" you see that are actually needing clean up by
rules changes, rather than just being a bit of high-traffic and new player
assimilation?
This is apropos of recent comments that "clean up drives" in the past have
led to less game play (after doing a couple, I thin
One comment: there's a lot of energy in Agencies right now. Agencies are
useful to let people do things on behalf of other people.
But that's all pretty meaningless if there's nothing for people to actually
*do*.
Get *something* in there (other than proposals) that's worth spending money
on.
This is purposefully vague, so that we can all work towards cleaning things
up in all the ways we need to clean.
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:49 PM Quazie wrote:
> I hereby issue intent to initiate a Proposal Competition, with Agoran
> Consent, with the specified
>
> Objective o
>
> f Treatin
That is the change I have made.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Quazie wrote:
> Suggestion:
>
> For the agency the responsible person is the head. For an organization the
> responsible person is either defined by the organization, or the player
> with the h
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Quazie wrote:
> I Object - I think a proposal competition around making things less messy
> might be more important at the moment vs adding a bunch of new academic
> stuff (I like the general idea, but it might not be the perfect time)
I object as well, with the
I'll add it to my long list of things to do. I might get around to a
better writeup of the Agency rule today, if not, then tomorrow.
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't care if it's actually a problem or just appears to be one, we
I don't care if it's actually a problem or just appears to be one, we
need to fix this. Care to write up a proposal Quazie?
-Aris
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Josh T wrote:
> If this is the case, I have no problem supporting such a proposal.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 30 May 2017 at 14:26, Quazie wrot
> On May 30, 2017, at 11:24 AM, Quazie wrote:
>
> 1 - I'm only suggesting i become assessor (You noted promotor once)
Typo.
> 2 - I'm not at all comfortable with updating a report automatically that I
> don't own
> 3 - I'm mostly looking to make a script that makes vote tallying reasonable
>
If this is the case, I have no problem supporting such a proposal.
天火狐
On 30 May 2017 at 14:26, Quazie wrote:
> So grok left, and that's a bummer, but it's especially a bummer for me,
> the Superintendent - I think his agency still exists... there's nothing in
> the rule about Agencies that sug
So grok left, and that's a bummer, but it's especially a bummer for me, the
Superintendent - I think his agency still exists... there's nothing in the
rule about Agencies that suggests it goes away, but I think the agency is
fully neutered, as agencies only allow you to act on behalf of a player.
1 - I'm only suggesting i become assessor (You noted promotor once)
2 - I'm not at all comfortable with updating a report automatically that I
don't own
3 - I'm mostly looking to make a script that makes vote tallying reasonable
via a series of csvs, and you can't really do work off of webhooks, as
I'd love if your assessor scripts automatically updated the ruleset. My plan is
to create proposals as git branches, then just have a script to merge them and
fill in rule IDs, etc. If you kept a Promotor log on GitHub, I could probably
set up a web hook that merged the accepted proposals.
> O
Superintendent's report (on github) is now up to date: Also, I hate new
emoji unicode chars, they look so ugly in this plain text report:
https://agoranomic.github.io/Superintendent/reports/month/next.txt
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:17 AM Quazie wrote:
> I've almost completed my automated ADoP rep
I've almost completed my automated ADoP report (running off of csv files
recording all events) and should be able to publish the ADoP report easily
on time from now on.
I'll get to writing an instant run-off script so I can handle all of the
Elections that are on-going and the elections that will
Suggestion:
For the agency the responsible person is the head. For an organization the
responsible person is either defined by the organization, or the player
with the highest budget switch if not defined.
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 03:15 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@go
I like this proposal. It fixes the problem of growing caseloads for
judges while still ensuring that important CFJs (those that multiple
people have an interest in) get judged.
However this proposal does not address the problem of growing caseload
for Arbitor and recordkeeping of CFJs. The Arb
I like this revision because it seems to have closed the loopholes of the last
one. However, one issue I see is if the member of the Organization leaves, it
is unclear what occurs. For your ease, I have compiled my suggested revisions
below:
Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this
I like this, but I think also adding procedural DISMISSALS without objection
would be a helpful addition.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 30, 2017, at 2:41 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> Bah.
>
> I retract “Judicial Reform.”
>
> I create the
I think we should trust Aris on this because he has more experience, but we
could still experiment with the concept through agencies or orgs.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 29, 2017, at 8:43 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 29, 201
57 matches
Mail list logo
