Votes, as well as a proposal, inline.
Gaelan
> On Oct 28, 2018, at 6:16 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> 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 Asses
If this goes to CFJ, I favor it.
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> >> On Oct 28, 2018, at 6:46 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 15:40 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >> While With Notice is a dependent action, demanding resignation is NOT
> >> w
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> > 8122 Murphy 3.0 Middle of the road
> AGAINST, this doesn't have any actual effect at the moment and it just
> complicates the math for the Assessor.
It has a couple current effects:
>From R2556:
> The voting strength of a player on an
Thinking it through, I don't think there's a practical effect worth a
CFJ - remembering that you can't "create" new proposals by distribution,
I'd say the first one was a correct distribution, the second one failed
to distribute (because those proposals weren't in the pool), but both
will self-r
It was intended to imply that I hadn’t sent it to the official forum, and
was now doing so. An abbreviation for “hey, I realized I sent this to BUS,
and now I want it on OFF for the official record”. I’ll admit that it’s
slightly ambiguous though. You can CFJ if you want whether I attempted to
dist
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> TTttOF.
Hrm, the sending to BUS was clearly effective, so what does re-sending
it to the OF with the sort of abbreviation that implies you're doing
it in the second message do?
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> UNDEAD seems super interesting. I just looked at a bunch of emails from
> the archive, but how did that end up? Was the contract ever revealed?
The origin of the UNDEAD is actually interesting to bring up in relation
to your latest political party idea.
I'll respond to this with a debate question:
Resolved: That announcing intent to do something, in such a way
that it would satisfy R1728 requirements, is an unregulated action.
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I CFJ “By sending a message at 3:35 PM Pacific on October 27, G. perform
Unfortunately, I think 8113 has been ratified out of the proposal
pool, as it was submitted before the last Proposal Pool report that
has ratified as being empty at the time.
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Does this list of proposals look complete and accurate to you all?
> Thanks
>> On Oct 28, 2018, at 6:46 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 15:40 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> While With Notice is a dependent action, demanding resignation is NOT
>> with notice: (2472/2)
>>
>> If a player is Overpowered, any player CAN Demand Re
On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 15:40 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> While With Notice is a dependent action, demanding resignation is NOT
> with notice: (2472/2)
>
> If a player is Overpowered, any player CAN Demand Resignation from
> em by announcement, provided e has announced intent do to so
While With Notice is a dependent action, demanding resignation is NOT with
notice: (2472/2)
If a player is Overpowered, any player CAN Demand Resignation from
em by announcement, provided e has announced intent do to so
between four and fourteen days earlier. The Overpowered pla
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:31 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> To the contrary, it is a dependent action—dependent on notice.
Nope. R2472/2 says:
If a player is Overpowered, any player CAN Demand Resignation from
em by announcement, provided e has announced intent do to so
between f
To the contrary, it is a dependent action—dependent on notice. The Agoran
Satisfaction rule does not limit objections to any particular types of
dependent actions. Instead, under the Agoran Satisfaction rule:
“An Objector to a dependent action is an eligible entity who has
publicly posted (and
CFJ 3664 held that informal grants of permission like this _are_ contracts,
once another player implicitly accepts the contract by performing the action it
permits.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:25 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> How does this work? Rules se
On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 18:18 -0400, D. Margaux wrote:
> To be sure, a player who has *withdrawn* an objection cannot object again
> (“A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent .. after
> e has withdrawn the same type of response.”). I suppose that is to prevent
> someone from ex
How does this work? Rules seem to only allow for contacts to allow acting on
behalf.
Gaelan
> On Oct 28, 2018, at 3:00 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> I grant permission for any person except D. Margaux to act on my behalf to
> Demand Resignation from D. Margaux within the next 7 days or unt
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> So here’s the scam—I think that nothing prevents me from objecting to this
> intent multiple times, every 48 hours, and thereby preventing Agora from
> ever becoming satisfied with it.
Yes there is, which is that Demanding Resignation is
So here’s the scam—I think that nothing prevents me from objecting to this
intent multiple times, every 48 hours, and thereby preventing Agora from
ever becoming satisfied with it.
Under Rule 2124, “The entities eligible to support or object to a dependent
action are, by default, all players, subj
It wasn't.
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018, 03:00 Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> "Trust no one" has already been adopted as Proposal 8105. Of course that
> doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't accidentally submitted again!
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 7:11 AM, Ari
I would be up for playing this. Just one comment below.
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 8:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Any player can become a Competitor and any Competitor can cease to be a
> party to this contract.
I think this should say these things can be done by announcement (as we
rec
This one was me+twg I think
> On Oct 28, 2018, at 3:11 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> 8120 G. 2.0 Fix for Uncertain Laurelings
"Trust no one" has already been adopted as Proposal 8105. Of course that
doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't accidentally submitted again!
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 7:11 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Does this list of proposals look complete and accurate t
Does this list of proposals look complete and accurate to you all?
Thanks in advance!
8112 Trigon 0.5 Trust no one
8113 Trigon 1.5 Heraldic uncertainty
8114 G., ATMunn 1.0 The Middle Way
8115 Trigon 1.0 Auction cleanup
8116 Trigon
24 matches
Mail list logo
