On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:47 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> A discussion question here, inspired by the Proposal Competition
> problem. (warning! rules-philosophical hypothetical ahead! if you
> don't like those, you can safely ignore the rest of this message).
>
> Let's say you have two rules:
>
A discussion question here, inspired by the Proposal Competition
problem. (warning! rules-philosophical hypothetical ahead! if you
don't like those, you can safely ignore the rest of this message).
Let's say you have two rules:
R1, Power-3: Officer A SHALL NOT do X.
R2, Power-1: Officer A
So I didn't mean to entirely destroy proposal competitions. Here's
a potential simple fix.
Proto (NOT a proposal): Simple Competition Fix
--
[While we all seem to be agreeing that the current economy is not
perfect, here's
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 16:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > That's the problem I was trying to solve with my ratification, by
> > just destroying the thing before the ambiguity created an unnecessary
> > mess. However, I missed this bit of rule 2466 "Wh
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> A list of co-authors (which must be persons other than the author).
> An adoption index."
Well now, a co-author is *obviously* not a coauthor!
[I kid ... but I did search only on 'coauthor' before submitting
previous arguments. :P ]
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> That's the problem I was trying to solve with my ratification, by
> just destroying the thing before the ambiguity created an unnecessary
> mess. However, I missed this bit of rule 2466 "When an action is
> performed on behalf of a principal, then the
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> If it's a proposal, then I submitted it - so if I withdraw it, then
> there exists no reality in which G. is the author of a proposal, as e is
> not a player.
Er, did you read my CFJ arguments?
But also, if you were capable of withdrawing it, you published:
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> Actually, I changed my mind with respect to that last parenthetical:
>> I'm not sure what the "path of least resistance" here actually is. As
>> far as I can tell, none of the rules limit the Proposal
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:52 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Actually, I changed my mind with respect to that last parenthetical:
> > I'm not sure what the "path of least resistance" here actually is. As
> > far as I can tell, none of the rules limit the Propo
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> Actually, I changed my mind with respect to that last parenthetical:
> I'm not sure what the "path of least resistance" here actually is. As
> far as I can tell, none of the rules limit the Proposal Pool to
> containing only proposals (it's just that they o
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Is there a different proposal out there that's removing the entire
> Junta thing (e.g. the Black-Ribbon granting powers, Patent Titles,
> and so forth)?
>
> I suppose we could wait for the munificence of our Dear Leader
> and hope e does a se
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 23:41 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:32 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document: {{There
> > is no proposal with the title "Throw off Your
> > Chains", and any entity which would otherwise be such a pro
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> I'll leave the proposal around as the CFJs are interesting, but
> that rule will be gone before the proposal in question pends I
> believe.
Is there a different proposal out there that's removing the entire
Junta thing (e.g. the Black-Ribbon granting powers,
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:32 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document: {{There
> is no proposal with the title "Throw off Your
> Chains", and any entity which would otherwise be such a proposal is
> not a proposal.}}
Could you give more information
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:33 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> >> 2942 was just amended when i Deputized Assessor, it's contents no longer
> >> delay anything, and it's go
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:27 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > 2942 was just amended when i Deputized Assessor, it's contents no longer
> > delay anything, and it's got a different name.
>
> Oh well shoot, I searched recent past on the term 2942 which isn't used
>
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:20 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I'm starting to get the impression that basing an economy on proposal
> > pending never works. Sometimes, distributing a proposal is part of a
> > scam, and thus worth paying for / fighting over. Ho
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:22 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Quazie wrote:
> > I withdraw all proposals i've submitted to the Proposal Competition
> > as the
> > thing just doesn't work and is currently a useless concept.
> >
> > I Encourage everyone to ignore the Pro
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:28 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > 2942 was just amended when i Deputized Assessor, it's contents no longer
> > delay anything, and it's got a different name.
>
> Oh well shoot, I searched recent past on the term 2942 which isn't used
>
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> 2942 was just amended when i Deputized Assessor, it's contents no longer
> delay anything, and it's got a different name.
Oh well shoot, I searched recent past on the term 2942 which isn't used
in the proposal. Serves me right for trying to be clear by put
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:23 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Quazie wrote:
> > I withdraw all proposals i've submitted to the Proposal Competition as
> the
> > thing just doesn't work and is currently a useless concept.
> >
> > I Enco
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> I'm starting to get the impression that basing an economy on proposal
> pending never works. Sometimes, distributing a proposal is part of a
> scam, and thus worth paying for / fighting over. However, the majority
> of proposals are intended to be "for the
Here are 5 proto proposals, I intend to submit and pend them shortly - lmk
if you have any feedbacks. KTHX.
Proposal: "Gentle Judicial Updates" AI=1.7, co-author='grok'
mess="Cuddlebeam proved judges can hold up a judgement if they don't feel
qualified to judge"
{{{
Create a new rule entitled '
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Quazie wrote:
> I withdraw all proposals i've submitted to the Proposal Competition as the
> thing just doesn't work and is currently a useless concept.
>
> I Encourage everyone to ignore the Proposal Competition.
>
Wait, don't be hasty. We haven't figured out how
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:09 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > IIRC, the pending system worked rather differently when we invented
> > proposal competitions.
>
> Yeah. For everyone who doesn't know, we didn't have an economy until December.
The pr
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Note to Arbitor: this message contains 2 CFJs, below.
>
> I use the BÖÖ Agency to submit the following proposal, "Throw off Your
> Chains", AI-3, specifying that it is a Competition Proposal for the
> current proposal competition:
> ---
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Quazie wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:03 PM Alex Smith wrote:
>>
>> Proto: the pender of a proposal and the submitter must be different
>> people. When a proposal is pended, the pender gains some fraction of
>> the pend fee. (In my experience, preventing peopl
On 06/05/2017 05:03 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
I'm starting to get the impression that basing an economy on proposal
pending never works. Sometimes, distributing a proposal is part of a
scam, and thus worth paying for / fighting over. However, the majority
of proposals are intended to be "for the good
Am 04.06.2017 um 07:52 schrieb Aris Merchant:
This will be the last draft of this proposal before I submit it.
-Aris
Title: Assets v5
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: o, nichdel
Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:
An asset is an entity defined as su
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 21:53 +, Quazie wrote:
>> I thought the whole point of a proposal competition was to distribute a
>> bunch of proposals without paying for them. Proposal competitions are
>> apparently useless - darn.
>
> IIRC, the pend
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:03 PM Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 21:53 +, Quazie wrote:
> > I thought the whole point of a proposal competition was to distribute a
> > bunch of proposals without paying for them. Proposal competitions are
> > apparently useless - darn.
>
> IIRC, the p
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 21:53 +, Quazie wrote:
> I thought the whole point of a proposal competition was to distribute a
> bunch of proposals without paying for them. Proposal competitions are
> apparently useless - darn.
IIRC, the pending system worked rather differently when we invented
propo
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 2:48 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> And ... the issues begin, too. NOT ANY CFJs: I want to see if
> we can resolve these with discussion without mucking up the competition.
>
>
> 1. From R2431: "During the Agoran Week following the initiation of a
> Proposal Competition
And ... the issues begin, too. NOT ANY CFJs: I want to see if
we can resolve these with discussion without mucking up the competition.
1. From R2431: "During the Agoran Week following the initiation of a
Proposal Competition"...
Does "the Agoran week following the initiation" mean this
Agreed - It was a foolish mistake on my part. WIll try to get better.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:35 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> This is not a major issue, but I would appreciate if people could stop
> sending emails to multiple lists.
> -
This is not a major issue, but I would appreciate if people could stop sending
emails to multiple lists.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jun 5, 2017, at 4:34 PM, Quazie wrote:
>
> I retract "Prime Minister Says What?" From the pool and the competi
I retract "Prime Minister Says What?" From the pool and the competition.
I submit the following replacement proposal for the Proposal Competition
Trivial Proposal "Prime Minister Says What? (v2)" AI = 2, co-author="Typos,
PSS" mess="Typos"
{{{
In rule 2423 replace:
{{{
The holder of the
You have a typo in the replacement because “all Agoran decisions other on
elections” doesn’t make any sense.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jun 5, 2017, at 4:28 PM, Quazie wrote:
>
> Trivial Proposal "Prime Minister Says What?" AI = 2, co-author=
Sorry, this email was not supposed to send.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jun 5, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
I think "I do xyz via GOD works" works well.
Gaelan
> On Jun 5, 2017, at 11:14 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> Having given notice, I use the powers of the GOD agency to create
> the following Agency on behalf of the Agency's head:
>
>> On Mon, 29 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I use the p
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 11:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Question:
> >
> > Do we have a reasonably-established shorthand for Agency actions?
> > Technically, I'm acting on behalf of Quazie here. Do I have to say
> > that each time?
>
> Our old shorthand
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 11:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Question:
>
> Do we have a reasonably-established shorthand for Agency actions?
> Technically, I'm acting on behalf of Quazie here. Do I have to say
> that each time?
Our old shorthand was "The AFO votes FOR on proposal 5707", etc., but
I'm
Agreed - Feel free to CoE, or I will CoE later today and fix it.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:59 AM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I think GII is missing.
>
> On Jun 5, 2017, at 10:38 AM, Quazie wrote:
>
> Superintendent's Weekly Report
>
> Short List of agencies:
>
> ASC - Head: Publius Scribonius Scho
I think GII is missing.
> On Jun 5, 2017, at 10:38 AM, Quazie wrote:
>
> Superintendent's Weekly Report
>
> Short List of agencies:
>
> ASC - Head: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> C♥️N - Head: CuddleBeam
> C♥️U - Head: CuddleBeam
> GOD - Head: Quazie
> MKD - Head: Gaelan
> PRN -
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:29 AM Quazie wrote:
> I deputize for the Assessor to resolve voting on proposals 7853-7857 as
> follows:
>
>
NOTE: I did not write an assessor script yet, so the format of the report
is likely to subtly change when I resolve the next proposals. I will aim
to resolve al
Gaelan Steele wrote:
I judge this as FALSE.
Rule 1698/4:
Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable
combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule
changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted
within a four-week period.
If, b
IIRC, we still need ais to pend reports. I'll probably pend or destroy some of
mine after the cleanup is passed.
> On Jun 5, 2017, at 12:17 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> This is my draft report. I'm starting to get a little fed up with all
> of the proposal hanging around in the pool. I was
This is my draft report. I'm starting to get a little fed up with all
of the proposal hanging around in the pool. I was waiting for people
to get payed before I started complaining too much, but the June
payday has come and gone. The ratio of pool proposals to pending
proposals is absurd, even if I
48 matches
Mail list logo
