Roger Hicks wrote:
> An automated web-page can easily track transfers of property and
>property ownership taking 90% of the hassle out of it. An audit record can
>be maintained by sending e-mail notification of all transactions to the
>mailing list,
Be careful there. If transfers and ot
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. What you describe is more or less what I was
referring to regarding "manual override".
For instance, I have no problem with a bot distributing Proposals
automatically as long as at least one player (or more preferably a chain of
command) has the ability to manually dis
Roger Hicks wrote:
>What's wrong with automation?
It goes away when its maintainer does. It has in some cases not in fact
been kept up to date. If it bypasses email, there's no reliable record
of the transactions that actually occurred.
I'm all in favour of automation, as a tool for officers to
Maud wrote:
> How temporary should it be?
Only until the current state of emergency has passed.
(by temporary, I meant "temporary way of killing a proposal until we
fixed abortion" not a temporary power).
> What is the real role of the Speaker?
A true prize for winning the game; I'd suggest th
On 5/21/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You were on my side with this one, Maud.
Yes, I remembered that this came from Cobalt (or something like that),
but I didn't remember *why* it happened.
Veto used to "abort" proposals,
but then we di
1. (Technical) Automate the proposal distribution process entirely.
Not likely to pass after what happened to Nomic World.
What's wrong with automation? The internet is a much more stable and
long-term place now then it used to be. NomicWorld has been defunct for
14-15(?) years now. A
Maud wrote:
> Third, I'd like to know the historical reasons for why the Speaker's
> veto doesn't just kill the proposal.
You were on my side with this one, Maud. Veto used to "abort" proposals,
but then we discovered that abortion was broken (CFJs 1549-1553) in a way
that made any sort of votin
Michael Slone wrote:
>I really don't understand why people are afraid of the tiniest bit
>of redundancy in the rules. Where we have irredundancy, it will
>come back to haunt us.
It's about maintainability. The "one less" provision is only correct
while natural players have their voting limits se
On 5/21/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
These two don't work together. (d) only makes sense if you're applying
these conditions at (or after) the end of the voting period. (e) needs
to be applied at the time the vote is cast.
I was hoping people wouldn't notice that they lose *all* thei
On 5/21/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A couple years back I floated something similar, Steve's comment was
"how do we keep our proposal numbering system straight, it's a
substantial historical series." Not that it's a bad idea, but
it's worth pondering. I think the formal distribu
Michael Slone wrote:
> The default time limit for a collective action is
>
> (a) fourteen days, if the action is not the adoption of a
> proposal; or
>
> (b) forever and a day, if the action is the adoption of a
> proposal.
Suggest that you make (a) be the default, and
Maud wrote:
> I allow a player to
> distribute a proposal on eir own if e wants and have the Promotor do
> it if nobody else does.
A couple years back I floated something similar, Steve's comment was
"how do we keep our proposal numbering system straight, it's a
substantial historical series."
Here is a version of "Generalize Dependent Actions" which attempts to
include the adoption of proposals under its umbrella. Rather than
getting rid of the Promotor and Assessor, I allow a player to
distribute a proposal on eir own if e wants and have the Promotor do
it if nobody else does.
There
13 matches
Mail list logo
