On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
Amend Rule 2474, "Green Cards", to read in full:
A Green Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for minor, accidental,
and/or inconsequential infraction. A Green Card is also appropriate for any
infraction for which no other type of Card is approp
G., can you explain why it's that way?
-Aris
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Why would anyone intend that? It doesn't make any sense.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:38 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
>> "Reading it's text, if a rule of higher power defers
>> to a rule of low
Why would anyone intend that? It doesn't make any sense.
-Aris
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:38 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> "Reading it's text, if a rule of higher power defers
> to a rule of lower power, the rule of higher power is followed anyway."
> Pretty sure that's intentional.
>
> On Sat, Sep 9, 201
"Reading it's text, if a rule of higher power defers
to a rule of lower power, the rule of higher power is followed anyway."
Pretty sure that's intentional.
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I know that this is one of the scariest, if not the scariest, game
> mechanics to fid
I know that this is one of the scariest, if not the scariest, game
mechanics to fiddle with. That being said, Rule 1030 is pretty
obviously broken. Reading it's text, if a rule of higher power defers
to a rule of lower power, the rule of higher power is followed anyway.
This fixes that and a few ot
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL
investigate the allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL
conclude the investigation by:
- issuing a Card to the pointed-at person by announcement whose
reason is rooted in the allegation;
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
I don't think this one is needed, because the definition of distribution
resolves to an Agoran decision initiation, described as a publishing action
elsewhere. In fact adding "by announcement" might do more harm than good.
It shouldn't do any harm as fa
I retract the proposal “Restraining Bolt” and submit the following proposal in
its place.
Title: Restraining Bolt
Author: o
Co-authors: V.J Rada, Ørjan
AI: 2.0
{{{
Amend rule 103 ("The Speaker") by replacing the second paragraph
with:
{{{
The player or players who have most
I don't feel confident enough about the idea philosophically to add it
to a proposal. The Referee's report doesn't self ratify, and this is
the kind of thing you don't want to be ambiguous about, so what do you
do? Make messages purporting to award a card self ratify?
-Aris
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at
Can you make it IMPOSSIBLE to issue people cards for doing legal
things, not just SHALL NOT. My "cards are appealable" failed because
of a different reason but that seems uncontro.
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I submit the following proposal.
>
> -Aris
>
> ---
> Title: C
Previous agency reports self-ratified right? So we're all good?
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 9, 2017, at 2:08 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you change the MAYs in agencies and Rewards to by announceme
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>>{{{
>>In a timely fashion after the start of June 1 of each year, the
>>Herald SHALL propose a set of Regulations governing a Birthday
>>Tournament for that year; the H
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> On Sep 9, 2017, at 2:08 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>> Can you change the MAYs in agencies and Rewards to by announcement so
>> that by adopting yours in conjunction w/ mine and ors, they're fixed?
>
> I plan to vote against your proposal, if i
On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
{{{
In a timely fashion after the start of June 1 of each year, the
Herald SHALL propose a set of Regulations governing a Birthday
Tournament for that year; the Herald CAN also delegate the
responsibility for creating or run
> On Sep 9, 2017, at 2:08 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> Can you change the MAYs in agencies and Rewards to by announcement so
> that by adopting yours in conjunction w/ mine and ors, they're fixed?
I plan to vote against your proposal, if it reaches that point. The Mother, May
I? framework is so deep
On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
Rule 2431 doesn't seem to restrict where specifications can be made.
"With Agoran Consent" is sufficient to restrict this to being done via
the public fora, because rule 1728 specifies that an action with that
constraint can be done by announcement (“
Can you change the MAYs in agencies and Rewards to by announcement so
that by adopting yours in conjunction w/ mine and ors, they're fixed?
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I submit the following proposal.
>
> Title: Restraining Bolt
> Author: o
> Co-authors: V.J Rada, Ørjan
> On Sep 9, 2017, at 1:39 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> Nope the text for CAN is this: "
>>
>> CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's
>> all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument
>> that you can
There's something that might maybe possibly help if this ever needs to
be fixed by judicial fiat:
"Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance with
the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of these
actions via Fora in order to play the game. The game may be won
On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
ninja'd
*MWAHAHAHA*
On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
"Using existing terminology (I hope correctly), an action which CAN be
performed, if the rules impose no other constraints, can be done in
any way at all"
Here's a list (it's quite short) of CANs w/ou
ninja'd
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> Nope the text for CAN is this: "
>>
>> CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's
>> all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument
>> that you
"Using existing terminology (I hope correctly), an action which CAN be
performed, if the rules impose no other constraints, can be done in
any way at all"
Here's a list (it's quite short) of CANs w/out "by announcement", "w/o
objection" or anything similar.
"The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal
On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
Nope the text for CAN is this: "
CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's
all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument
that you can do anything with a CAN in private, sure.
Hm so searching for CAN...
Rul
> On Sep 9, 2017, at 1:04 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> Nope the text for CAN is this: "
>
> CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's
> all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument
> that you can do anything with a CAN in private, sure.
What the e
Sorry, I got the default reversed, you're right. Your language works
because of this:
Restricted Actions CAN only be performed as described by the
Rules.
and the "be performed as described" means you have to describe how its
done for it to be allowable (i.e. the rules have to de
i did retract.
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> On Sep 8, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Aris Merchant
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:01 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
>>> I pend the following w/ AP (I have none left this week, having called
>>> a CFJ on my playerhood)
>>> Title: N
Nope the text for CAN is this: "
CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's
all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument
that you can do anything with a CAN in private, sure.
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> No. No no n
No. No no no no no. No.
CAN isn't successful either, UNLESS THERE'S A BY ANNOUNCEMENT.
The problem ISN'T SHALL and CAN. It's the missing "by announcement".
That's what the CFJs say.
You've just said "if it says MAY, attempts to do it *are successful*.
Even if done in Discussion. Even if do
On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
I looked through every MAY, there's no probs having it imply CAN in all
cases.
Hm looks like you're right. I guess the need for the opposite is so rare
it can just be written more explicitly.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:01 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
>> I pend the following w/ AP (I have none left this week, having called
>> a CFJ on my playerhood)
>> Title: No messin' with Stamps
>> AI: 1
>> Amend rule 2498 "Economic Wins" by removing
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:01 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
> I pend the following w/ AP (I have none left this week, having called
> a CFJ on my playerhood)
> Title: No messin' with Stamps
> AI: 1
> Amend rule 2498 "Economic Wins" by removing the sentence
> "Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and
On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
I already looked through these and posted a less elaborate list, although:
"A Reward is a specified amount of shinies associated with a Reward
Condition. For each time a player meets a Reward Condition, e MAY
claim the specified award exactly once within 24 ho
I'm fairly proud that my attempted Stamp thing served as the nudge to start
these dominos going.
But I'm not looking forwards to the work and reading that it will take to
get this all fixed though lol. It's like a silent cancer that has
maytastasized throughout our ruleset and just now we've notic
I looked through every MAY, there's no probs having it imply CAN in all cases.
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Yep. We definitely need to fix all of these. Just passing a "MAY
> (sometimes) implies CAN" rule would fix all in one stroke. However,
> the lower case ones aren't
Yep. We definitely need to fix all of these. Just passing a "MAY
(sometimes) implies CAN" rule would fix all in one stroke. However,
the lower case ones aren't problems at all, because "These definitions
are used when a rule includes a term in all caps, and provide guidance
in determining the ordin
so uh... agencies, rewards and welcome packages are illegal.
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 1:39 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> "Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously by the
> Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part of it, e may
> submit a document to the Registrar, clearl
Yeah, mine failed both under the believed paradigm and the real paradigm
because I did silly typos. (mixed up shiny with floating value or something
iirc).
Gaelan did wire me some monies though, as compensation. I'm pretty sure his
attempted worked (under the believed paradigm) because it uses may
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
1a. Whatever fix we undertake should _not_ somehow resurrect actions we
had all understood, within the context of that mistaken reading of the
rules, to be ineffective or impossible at the time they were performed.
There are a few shiny transactions th
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 7:45 PM Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > Re-enact Rule 2309 (The Propose-O-Matic), with the following text:
> >
> > The Fearmongor is an Office. Its holder is responsible for
> > ensuring the continuous change of the
I suggest bumping this tomorrow for visibilty during the evening because
it's super late in Europe rn and pretty late in the states.
A way to dodge those side-effects could be to make it so formally no
actions actually happened during the controversial timeframe and we just
lock in the gamestate t
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 11:10 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> Having caught up - y’all are exhaustingly fast, you know that? - I think it’s
> time to start drafting the fixes in earnest.
>
> Some basic principles:
>
> 1. The actions undertaken so far were undertaken in broadly good faith with
> re
Having caught up - y’all are exhaustingly fast, you know that? - I think it’s
time to start drafting the fixes in earnest.
Some basic principles:
1. The actions undertaken so far were undertaken in broadly good faith with
respect to the transactional nature of the current economic rules, and
p
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 4:02 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> AP is unambiguous throughout the "timelines", so just making/pending a fix
> proposal with that would be the clearest way imo.
>
> Also I've seen that Owen has made a bunch of cheap proposals, which could
> make for huge profits once the ec
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 5:00 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> > pick op Cards
>
> Proto: Royal Flush
> When you possess all different card colors, you win the game
This made me laugh far harder than it should have. If it didn’t mean
incentivizing serious rule-breaking, including rulebreaking in offici
On Sep 8, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Re-enact Rule 2309 (The Propose-O-Matic), with the following text:
>
> The Fearmongor is an Office. Its holder is responsible for
> ensuring the continuous change of the ruleset.
>
> Each month, the Fearmongor SHALL do the foll
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
P.S. Yellow Card apology word lists appear to have the same MAY/CAN bug.
I don't think that counts, because "specify" is a common sense ability
that persons have naturally.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
why aren't you doing these token-issuings all in the same message (」゜ロ゜)」
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:07 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> > On Sep 8, 2017, at 4:21 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >
> > Woo, delusions are reality.
> >
> > I transfer to Agora the Stamp Value, in shinies, to create a Stamp.
>
>
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document:
{ On Mon Sep 4 21:49:56 UTC 2017, the Floating Value was set to 16. }
Hm, I've recently been thinking about ratification a bit, and this happens
to hit one of my quibbles.
When a pu
On a side note, Blognomic has also relatively recently had a crisis with
"may"s lol: https://blognomic.com/archive/may_day
(It was the first thing I "exploited" but I sucked at nomic back then so
while I "scammed", most of it had no teeth because it wasn't directed
towards actually winning.)
It w
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
Rule 2467 may not enable creating Agencies - that's a "MAY", so I'm a
bit surprised no one seems to have picked up on this. If "may"s are a
problem, amendment, revocation and use is also impossible.
This is resolved because of ratific
I'm cool with ratifying floating value, but isn't that the Registrar's
Report not the Secretary's report? The documents you list in the
ratification attempt place the floating value setting action outside
the "Report" body. So it's not clear in that attempt that you're
ratifying the action of s
My plan is to fix the urgent crisis of not knowing what out gamestate
is/not having it agree with our preconceptions, and then patch the
hole, preferably ratifying the fact the gamestate to be as if the
problem had never existed. To be honest, my first concern is fixing
the floating value, it's jus
On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > I transfer to Agora the Stamp Value, in shinies, to create a Stamp.
> >
> > I know this is very likely impossible, I'm not trying to mislead anyone.
> >
> > But if we ratify everything to what would-have-b
I bid 68, same blurb as I posted before
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 3:01 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Ah, good catch.
>
> I bid 67 shinies on this auction. My blurb shall be
>
> My blurb:
>
> {{{
> Cagliostro is the bread basket of the Agoran realm. Wherever the eye may
> roam, the land rolls in gentle
I agree all of these should be fixed and made more explicit. Please see below
for more details.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> I transfer to Agora the
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
Proto: Royal Flush
When you possess all different card colors, you win the game
OK I laughed.
Greetings,
Ørjan, who never lols though.
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I transfer to Agora the Stamp Value, in shinies, to create a Stamp.
I know this is very likely impossible, I'm not trying to mislead anyone.
But if we ratify everything to what would-have-been, I want my cheap stamp.
I'll just note that the currently aw
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >I'm actually not sure what you're trying to iterate anyway...
> Iterate through all people and all relevant Trust Token amounts. So kinda
> like, fill in a grid where people and amounts are the axis?
Yah, I thought at first it was sent to Business so w
>I'm actually not sure what you're trying to iterate anyway...
Iterate through all people and all relevant Trust Token amounts. So kinda
like, fill in a grid where people and amounts are the axis?
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Actually, this fails to Iterate because
> pick op Cards
Proto: Royal Flush
When you possess all different card colors, you win the game
but yeah I get you lol.
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I favor this set of CFJs.
>
> Pre-judgement: Textbook case of INSUFFICIENT.
>
> Also, massive finger-pointing due t
>An Estate whose Farm switch is "farmed" is a Farm, and its owner is the
Farmer of that Estate.
Do
you
meeean
that I literally get to be a farmer now?
mfw: https://youtu.be/_q0QGtk_AM0?t=2m31s
Actually, this fails to Iterate because replacing "I" makes
each sentence "G. CFJ the following... o CFJ the following..."
which is nonsense.
I'm actually not sure what you're trying to iterate anyway...
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I favor this set of CFJs.
>
> Pre-judgement: Tex
Dont try this at home kids
Via paying an aye pee I CFJ the following: "I have exactly 1 Trust Token"
iterate "I" with every player and "1" with integers from 1 to the number of
players in the game.
Badabing badaboom, you got your Trust Token report
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Kerim Aydin
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> It would be that Samaritan version though. I understand that you'd like that
> oompf
> via it being in the Ruleset and official but I dunno. It's alright.
Well, the Samaritan version doesn't require any Proposal at all,
so if this fails I'll decide if i
It would be that Samaritan version though. I understand that you'd like
that oompf via it being in the Ruleset and official but I dunno. It's
alright.
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Happy to consider alternate implementation if you write it out before the
> end
> of th
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Oho, so I wasn't too far off! Nice.
> We could bypass the freezing by making all of our pseudo-actions retroactively
> real actions according to the new proposal's paradigm. Could that work?
It depends on whether we ratify state (e.g. "the holdings are ex
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Quazie wrote:
> 24 hours have passed - I modify QAZ as noted below.
> I point a finger at myself for breaking a pledge i kinda made - I note i'm
> already in
> America, so I'm unsure if the green card properly applies
There's only actually one of each Card type anyway. The
>I note: there are so many pledges out there, with no real accountability,
and they last forever, and that's super weird - I think we likely need to
aggregate them some how
So we DO need more offices! Contractor when? lol
Also, I wonder when someone convinces someone to just register and become
t
Oho, so I wasn't too far off! Nice.
We could bypass the freezing by making all of our pseudo-actions
retroactively real actions according to the new proposal's paradigm. Could
that work?
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> We had a conversation about this in Discussion a f
Happy to consider alternate implementation if you write it out before the end
of the week. As you say, proposals are cheap right now :)
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I'd vote in favor of it. It's something I'd humbly bet that it would be good
> but I just don't like too much how it'
I'd vote in favor of it. It's something I'd humbly bet that it would be
good but I just don't like too much how it's brought into action in Kerim's
version. Still a good idea though.
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Quazie wrote:
> I have some immediate applications for Official Proposals assumin
We had a conversation about this in Discussion a few weeks ago actually.
I said, "I can't remember the precedent, but I think this might be broken".
e said "I noticed the same thing, but I really want the economy to function
so I've been just kinda hoping it wasn't broken, and someone mentioned
When the puzzle is the intentions of strangers you only know through typed
words, it's often easy to solve the wrong puzzle.
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:10 PM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> (Just suspicion though, if this is actually what is happening, then thats
> still OK imo, I see we have cheeky plays at
(Just suspicion though, if this is actually what is happening, then thats
still OK imo, I see we have cheeky plays at times and that's alright. If
it's not happening, then I'll admit that I was wrong and simply put
together the wrong puzzle pieces.)
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Cuddle Beam wr
AP is unambiguous throughout the "timelines", so just making/pending a fix
proposal with that would be the clearest way imo.
Also I've seen that Owen has made a bunch of cheap proposals, which could
make for huge profits once the economy gets better (Proposals: Welcome
Package CAN Patch, Stamp CAN
I have some immediate applications for Official Proposals assuming this
passes.
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 12:31 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Oh I forgot the other reason: Official proposals are a good mechanic to
> have for any time an officer needs to fix a bug that benefits everyone.
> So this is
Oh I forgot the other reason: Official proposals are a good mechanic to
have for any time an officer needs to fix a bug that benefits everyone.
So this is a good general mechanic to introduce, I'm just doing it by
adding some new gameplay.
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep
If we trust that the proposal is going through, we can continue
to play as if Floating value has been changed correctly, and assume
the values will catch up officially when the proposal passes.
If we ratify without fixing the rule (fixing the rule requires a
proposal no matter what), what happe
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Why is it numbered 1) then 3)?
> no 2)?
Oh crud I thought I fixed that.
> Also, functionally this is very similar to as if a Samaritan player decided
> to
> just do the rolls and submit proposals on their own accord (Proposals are
> very,
> very cheap
but without a proposal, everything is still totally broken?
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 12:01 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The long-term effect is equivalent. The short term effect is different
> though, in that ratification without objection takes 4 days, and
> prop
The long-term effect is equivalent. The short term effect is different
though, in that ratification without objection takes 4 days, and
proposals take a week min but usually more like 2. Keep in mind that
ratification is really just a way to change the past, regardless if
whether you're changing it
Why is it numbered 1) then 3)?
no 2)?
Also, functionally this is very similar to as if a Samaritan player decided
to just do the rolls and submit proposals on their own accord (Proposals
are very, very cheap). I don't see why that can't just be done now to try
out the concept before nailing it do
Having told this story and mused on it a bit, I'm wondering if my
memory is faulty. I know we *talked* a lot about mass deregistration,
but I'm also remembering we talked about some less drastic solutions,
something like everybody announcing "I hereby resign all my offices"
and a few other mass
> > On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:29 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> > We'd have to wind back all transactions with agora to the point where
> > agora's balance would have been positive... does that make CFJs and
> > proposals pended with money invalidly pended and called?
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius
Not particularly motivated rn to object but please let me know why
deliberately ratifying false info (with good intent though) is preferable
over proposing to set the gamestate to be a certain way.
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlema
I agree it feels weird, but at least some of the behavior has already ratified
and things might just confuse the gamestate.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 7:42 AM, Quazie wrote:
>
> Tbh I feel weird about it too, and would prefer
Tbh I feel weird about it too, and would prefer the fix to come via proposal
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 22:40 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document:
>
> {{The revision to the secretary's report, available here [1], w
I wouldn’t mind recreating the office of ambassador.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 3:06 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> I'd personally LOVE to have some cross-nomic action. One way is to
No, because CFJs are non-binding and we can ratify without objection facts, in
contradiction to CFJs.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:29 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> We'd have to wind back all transactions with agora to the point wher
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I'd personally LOVE to have some cross-nomic action. One way is to have Agora
> be a
> guest in whatever theme is chosen (for example, Agora makes some rule to be
> included
> or a few game pieces), and another could be having Agora have much more acti
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Kyle Anderson wrote:
> Your message implies that the Agora player base as a whole has not always
> been so reasonable. I think that's too bad, though I guess there are those
> who play to win, not to play.
One thing is that, as long as I've known the game, players are pretty
91 matches
Mail list logo