Here's my weekly draft report.
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 2.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
al
It better be a report, or it wouldn't self ratify, which we seem to be
assuming it does.
-Aris
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Totally agree, the CoE part is an unforeseen loophole!
>
> I suppose up you could argue that the R2201 duty is to publish a "revision"
> which
On Aug 3, 2017, at 8:46 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 01:23 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> I claim the rewards for judging CFJs 3551 and 3552.
>>
>> {Agora: 85 -> 73 sh., o: 68 -> 80 sh.}
>
> "COE": You can't, they were pended using AP.
Then it’s a good thing those never made
Oops. You already did. Sorry!
-Aris
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Going to fix that? Also, if you care to resubmit, would you include
> nichdel's proposed modification to the rewards rule in the general
> fixes proposal?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:49 PM, V.J
Going to fix that? Also, if you care to resubmit, would you include
nichdel's proposed modification to the rewards rule in the general
fixes proposal?
-Aris
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:49 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
> And I didn't fix my typo of dependent, twice. Goddamn.
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:47 P
Working on it.
-Aris
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:03 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
> My "minor fixes" proposal should be passed w/ all speed though because
> I don't want something actually important like the text of the ruleset
> at issue with this scam. I
>
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:53 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
My "minor fixes" proposal should be passed w/ all speed though because
I don't want something actually important like the text of the ruleset
at issue with this scam. I
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:53 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
> We'll have to wait for murphy to judge the CFJ regarding this to sort
> out th
We'll have to wait for murphy to judge the CFJ regarding this to sort
out the game state, but if it did work it's fixed and if it didn't
work my pended proposal makes it unambiguous whenever it gets passed
so the only thing at issue is whether or not we're all winners.
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 7:53
Which precedent, where? Also, Agoran precedent isn't really "a reason why
things happen". It's more a way to decide among the competing rule
interpretations, as people keep pointing out to me when the file motions to
reconsider my CFJs. :)
-Aris
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:30 PM Publius Scribonius S
See my other response for why I believe this is invalid and ineffective, but
thankfully not needed.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Aug 3, 2017, at 4:20 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 21:15 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I intend, wi
I believe this clearly fails because of precedent.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Aug 3, 2017, at 2:57 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
>
> Sorry sorry sorry. But the rules do textually allow me to do this,
> although I am sure the rules will be construed by t
Could you give insight into this?
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Aug 3, 2017, at 2:05 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2017, at 1:12 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> I find the statement
>>
>>> If V.J. Rada posted the following text conta
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 12:57 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > I'd have attempted to use the scam to close itself if I could think of
> > > a way to do so (either it fails, no big deal, nothing happens; or it
> >
On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 12:57 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I'd have attempted to use the scam to close itself if I could think of
> > a way to do so (either it fails, no big deal, nothing happens; or it
> > succeeds and thus there isn't a scam now), but I d
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> I'd have attempted to use the scam to close itself if I could think of
> a way to do so (either it fails, no big deal, nothing happens; or it
> succeeds and thus there isn't a scam now), but I don't think there is a
> way to use the scam to close itself; it
I think we're saying the same thing here - you were talking about an
"Effective counterscam", I was saying why bother, and you replied why
bother :)
Anyway, the best "counterscam" is probably to put out a retroactive
proposal "any without objection action that was performed less than
4 days afte
On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 11:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Is anything worth aiming for when anyone can ratify anything by
> announcement?
RWO explicitly can't change the ruleset. That makes it difficult to do
irreversible damage to the gamestate with it, even if it's possible to
RWO arbitrary docume
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 16:57 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> > Sorry sorry sorry. But the rules do textually allow me to do this,
> > although I am sure the rules will be construed by the already pending
> > CFJ to obviously not allow me to do this because it would
On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 16:57 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> Sorry sorry sorry. But the rules do textually allow me to do this,
> although I am sure the rules will be construed by the already pending
> CFJ to obviously not allow me to do this because it would be silly.
> But I can't not *try*
>
> I intend
19 matches
Mail list logo
