On 7/14/2019 7:39 PM, nch wrote:
If a sector exists with an ID equivalent to the current month of the
year, and a sector exists with an ID equivalent to the current day of the
month then those sectors are adjacent.
I love this one
"what are you waiting for? make the jump to lightspeed
On 7/14/2019 7:56 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I'm just curious on whether or not my reading of the Rules is correct here.
If I was to submit a proposal and specify the AI as something that needs to
be evaluated, say "the power of [some Rule]", then that is evaluated at the
time of me submitting the
Just a heads up to everyone: I’m traveling at the moment, so the report
will be delayed. I was hoping to finish it up quickly today, but I had less
time than I thought I would and people keep creating tons of uproposals.
So, I’ll try to get it out as soon as I can, but that may take a bit.
-Aris
I'm just curious on whether or not my reading of the Rules is correct
here. If I was to submit a proposal and specify the AI as something that
needs to be evaluated, say "the power of [some Rule]", then that is
evaluated at the time of me submitting the proposal, right? If that's
the case, coul
On Sun, 2019-07-14 at 20:23 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I have investigated the history of the rule. Rule 2517 was repealed by
> Proposal 8054 on 23 June 2018. Since that is the case, it should have
> been removed from the ruleset; however, it was not. Since then, it has
> been discussed once
I have investigated the history of the rule. Rule 2517 was repealed by
Proposal 8054 on 23 June 2018. Since that is the case, it should have
been removed from the ruleset; however, it was not. Since then, it has
been discussed once or twice despite not actually being in effect,
notably in the D
On 7/14/2019 6:53 PM, James Cook wrote:
Thanks for raising it, nch! G., I remember you put out a
proto-proposal to add new degrees related to law [0]. I would be
honoured to get any degree for this, but it would be kind of fun for
it to be a law degree.
[0] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-d
Are you sure it's ineffectual? I could consider ", increasing its
armour switch to 10" to be an assertion separate from your
announcement that you perform the action. I'll hold off on this week's
Treasuror report in case you want to try to clarify the gamestate with
a conditional action. (I'm also
In that case, both actions failed. I should have 10 coins and Theseus,
my spaceship, has 20 energy.
On 7/14/19 8:56 PM, James Cook wrote:
Hm... my reading would be that the default is "null". And I'm not sure
what happens if you increase "null' by 1.
Jason Cobb
I think it's 0 due to R2509 (Ag
Whoops, you're right. I suppose I haven't read the entire ruleset yet :).
Jason Cobb
On 7/14/19 8:56 PM, James Cook wrote:
Hm... my reading would be that the default is "null". And I'm not sure
what happens if you increase "null' by 1.
Jason Cobb
I think it's 0 due to R2509 (Agoran Numbers):
> Hm... my reading would be that the default is "null". And I'm not sure
> what happens if you increase "null' by 1.
>
> Jason Cobb
I think it's 0 due to R2509 (Agoran Numbers): "If 0 is in the
specified values...".
Oh you're right, I missed the "by 1" somehow. The payment should be
entirely ineffectual then. I'm not sure if the movement worked since the
ship might not be pilotable, but I see no reason to think 0 is a more
(or less) likely number than 10 in the rules.
On 7/14/19 8:42 PM, James Cook wrote:
Thanks for raising it, nch! G., I remember you put out a
proto-proposal to add new degrees related to law [0]. I would be
honoured to get any degree for this, but it would be kind of fun for
it to be a law degree.
[0] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg46799.html
On M
Hm... my reading would be that the default is "null". And I'm not sure
what happens if you increase "null' by 1.
Jason Cobb
On 7/14/19 8:42 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 22:04, nch wrote:
It's also not clear what the default of the
armour value is. If my spaceships armour valu
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 22:04, nch wrote:
> It's also not clear what the default of the
> armour value is. If my spaceships armour value is less than 10, I pay 1
> coin to repair it, increasing its armour switch to 10.
Welcome!
I think armour currently defaults to zero. There was a proposal to fi
It's the Herald's responsibility, but only enforced by a SHOULD. Our last
Herald did a disappearing act around when this was being resolved (I think e
may have announced intent to award just before e vanished). I just
deputised to pick up the tasks but haven't gotten to this one yet (on my
TOD
Unfortunately, nch, you are literally the only person with a spaceship
right now
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:04 AM nch wrote:
> It appears my registration causes me to own a spaceship, and G has
> caused me to have 10 coins. It's also not clear what the default of the
> armour value is. If my spac
I haven't had a chance yet to properly review this document and
recommend or critique it, but it strikes me that we should have a review
system that makes this someone's responsibility so that the document
doesn't disappear into limbo, and the writer either gets their reward or
understands why
> On Jul 14, 2019, at 12:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> After pondering on it I'm likely going to vote against it - the stakes are
> too high. I don't think it's reasonable to be able to steal all of
> someone's assets via minor inattention.
Well, under the current rules, players can protect
Thank you for the package, whatever it may contain (I'm still working my
way through the current game-state). I'm deciding to play again while
starting both a new job and a graduate degree (after all, I'll need some
sort of equally-stressful distraction when those things stress me out),
so I mi
I thought it might be you :) Welcome back!!!
On 7/14/2019 2:24 PM, nch wrote:
You're right, I'm rusty. And regrettably the Protonmail IMAP bridge doesn't
have a Linux release yet, so I guess I'll revive this account. I register
with the name nch.
On 7/14/19 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If
If you were hoping that the cc would register you, it likely doesn't:
actions can only be taken "within" messages (within the bodies).
You can refer to other parts of the email in the body (e.g. "I do
what the subject line says") but you can't straight-out take actions
without some indication in
On 7/14/2019 10:48 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 16:04, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> This also gives a mechanism to trade/sell zombies - that was
purposefully>> left out of the original I don't really think zombies should
be a fungible>> asset.> > Why not? The zombie rules as a whole
And now you see why we never ratify the FLR.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 2:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Okay. I was going to try something nefarious with this, but I guess I can't
> then. On Rule 2517, the annotations list the rule as being enacted, and
> then repealed, without being re-enacted,
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, even if it was for a
self-serving purpose. I will investigate the history of this rule and
report back.
--
Trigon
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 12:02 Jason Cobb wrote:
> Okay. I was going to try something nefarious with this, but I guess I can't
> then. On R
Okay. I was going to try something nefarious with this, but I guess I can't
then. On Rule 2517, the annotations list the rule as being enacted, and
then repealed, without being re-enacted, so there might be something off
there.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 12:58 PM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> No part of any
They are not. Nothing in the SLR or FLR is self-ratifying. Customarily, we
ratify the SLR from time to time by proposal in order to ensure we
accurately understand the ruleset. This is done by explicit proposal so
that people have an opportunity to check it and prevent scams. However, the
FLR is ne
No part of any ruleset is self-ratifying.
--
Trigon
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 11:57 Jason Cobb wrote:
> Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a
> friend.
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley
> wrote:
>
> > THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
> >
> > These rulesets ar
Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a
friend.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley wrote:
> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
>
> These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/
>
> Date of last official ruleset of this type: 16 Jun 2019
> Date of
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 16:04, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> After pondering on it I'm likely going to vote against it - the stakes are
> too high. I don't think it's reasonable to be able to steal all of
> someone's assets via minor inattention.
Oh, for some reason I thought this was just for stealing pl
Oh, that makes sense. You probably want to do something about zombies with
resale value 0. Normally their master switches can't be changed to another
player.
On Sun., Jul. 14, 2019, 11:53 D. Margaux, wrote:
> Thought it could add a fun mechanic to zombies, where we'd be trying to
> catch each ot
After pondering on it I'm likely going to vote against it - the stakes are
too high. I don't think it's reasonable to be able to steal all of
someone's assets via minor inattention.
This also gives a mechanism to trade/sell zombies - that was purposefully
left out of the original I don't reall
"A player CAN by announcement pay 10 coins to Agora to flip to emself another
player's master switch without objection from that other player or that other player's
master (if any), provided the intent to flip that switch was announced at least 7 days
before the switch is flipped."
I think we
Thought it could add a fun mechanic to zombies, where we'd be trying to
catch each other off guard. Especially because people tend to have periods
of higher and lower attention to Agora.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 11:28 AM James Cook wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 11:23, D. Margaux wrote:
> > I w
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 11:23, D. Margaux wrote:
> I withdraw my AFK proposal and propose this in its place:
>
> Title: AFK Reform Act v1.1
What's the purpose of this proposal?
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 07:47, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I earn 5 coins for the publication of the SLR for the twenty-seventh
> week of 2019.
I think it is the 28th week right now. I'm not sure whether this is
successful. Maybe try again just to be sure?
36 matches
Mail list logo
