I retract the proposal "Way More Controversial Version of the Above" for real
this time.
On 10/26/2017 8:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
NttPF.
-Aris
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, ATMunn wrote:
Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously
nobody will vote for it.
It is certainly a restricted action. It modifies information I'm
required to recordkeep, and it is enabled by the rules.
-Aris
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:06 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> Retraction of Proposals is not informal!
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote
Thank you, I have checked the ruleset and you are correct. I thought
that it was not required to be by announcement, but I was incorrect.
On 10/26/2017 09:06 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> Retraction of Proposals is not informal!
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrot
Retraction of Proposals is not informal!
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> But retraction is itself informal.
>
>
> On 10/26/2017 08:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> NttPF.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>>> Ah. I retrac
But retraction is itself informal.
On 10/26/2017 08:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> NttPF.
>
> -Aris
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>> Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously
>> nobody will vote for it.
>>
>>
>> On 10/25/2017 9:51 PM, Kerim Ay
NttPF.
-Aris
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, ATMunn wrote:
> Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously
> nobody will vote for it.
>
>
> On 10/25/2017 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Needs to be AI-3 to work.
>>
>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:
>>>
>>
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 13:13 +1100, VJ Rada wrote:
> > Actually, I wonder whether or not we should just repeal the Public Forum
> > rule? Because there are so many references to Public Fora in the rules, as
> > well as Agora is a Nomic being a rule, it feel
On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 13:13 +1100, VJ Rada wrote:
> Actually, I wonder whether or not we should just repeal the Public Forum
> rule? Because there are so many references to Public Fora in the rules, as
> well as Agora is a Nomic being a rule, it feels like the existence of the
> current Public Fora
Repealing the rule would probably leave us with a common-law
definition of fora that is something like "A place that all Agorans
have access to and is regularly used and understood by Agorans as a
place game actions are sent to". Discussion fora are not so
understood. Changing fora would simply inv
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Actually, I wonder whether or not we should just repeal the Public Forum
> rule?
> Because there are so many references to Public Fora in the rules, as well as
> Agora is a Nomic being a rule, it feels like the existence of the current
> Public Fora as Fo
Actually, I wonder whether or not we should just repeal the Public Forum
rule? Because there are so many references to Public Fora in the rules, as
well as Agora is a Nomic being a rule, it feels like the existence of the
current Public Fora as Fora would still be implied. And having the whole
game
Yeah, if we had a significant amount of time and quorum for agoran consent,
there would be no point in having it.
It does feel odd that you would have to bribe less people to give you a
title of your choice if you did it "non-traditionally", though. I mean,
it's quite possible without doing anythi
Deregistering the players wouldn't destroy Agora.
As long as the public forum exists (now *that's* worth protecting),
a person CAN still register when there's no players. This would allow
the Assessor to resolve the proposal and register and be the only player
in the game for the duration of
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote:
> Isn't it? They seem to be the same in terms of the proportion of people you
> need to get on side, it's hard to see how they aren't intended to be similar.
> It seems kind of strange that it's easier to award a patent title by making an
> AI1.5 proposal tha
Actually, I agree with you. It probably should be 1.5 Agoran Consent. Or
1.4 Consent.
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Madeline wrote:
> Isn't it? They seem to be the same in terms of the proportion of people
> you need to get on side, it's hard to see how they aren't intended to be
> similar.
Is this intended to influence the destroying-the-universe CFJ? This is
literally exactly the thing the arguments there were talking about.
On 2017-10-26 12:45, ATMunn wrote:
For fun, I create the below proposal:
Title: Way More Controversial Version of the Above
Author: ATMunn
Co-Author(s): T
Isn't it? They seem to be the same in terms of the proportion of people
you need to get on side, it's hard to see how they aren't intended to be
similar. It seems kind of strange that it's easier to award a patent
title by making an AI1.5 proposal than it is to get the herald to use
the intende
I was tempted.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 at 21:53 ATMunn wrote:
> Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously
> nobody will vote for it.
>
> On 10/25/2017 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > Needs to be AI-3 to work.
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> >> For
Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously nobody
will vote for it.
On 10/25/2017 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Needs to be AI-3 to work.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:
For fun, I create the below proposal:
Title: Way More Controversial Version of the Above
Needs to be AI-3 to work.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> For fun, I create the below proposal:
>
> Title: Way More Controversial Version of the Above
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-Author(s): Telnaior, V.J. Rada
>
> Deregister all currently registered players.
>
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 at 21:40 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > 2. Flipping Officeholder switches isn't secured anywhere
> That's a good catch, worth fixing.
>
Is it? It's still regulated.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Telnaior wrote:
> I create the following proposal and use an Action Point to flip its Imminence
> switch to pending:
I will vote against this because I have a better way to hide these bodies...
heh heh...
> 1. Rule 649 "Patent Titles" requests stronger consent for awardin
22 matches
Mail list logo
