I withdraw the proposal “Organization Repeal” and submit the following proposal
in its place. I pend it by paying Agora 1 sh..
Changelog: some minor phraseology fixes in The Treasuror.
-o
Title: Organization Repeal
Author: o
AI: 3.0
{{{
If a proposal titled "Contracts", followed by a versi
On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
>
>
> On 09/02/17 17:37, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> I think we could upgrade Agencies to that they can hold Shinies themselves.
> With that plus proper Powers, they could operate extremely similarly to how
> I believe Organizations are intended to. (And
Other than deregistration, the other problems can be solved with pledges.
However, agencies + pledges is an even messier solution than orgs as they are
now.
Gaelan
> On Sep 2, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
>
>
>
> On 09/02/17 17:37, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> I think we could upgrade Agenci
> On Sep 1, 2017, at 11:45 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> I don’t support this. I see little harm in keeping an interesting game
> mechanic in the ruleset, especially if we make it clear that it is not
> necessary for beginners to understand. If necessary, we could add a rule
> along the lines
> On Sep 2, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
>
>
>
> On 09/02/17 17:37, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> I think we could upgrade Agencies to that they can hold Shinies themselves.
>> With that plus proper Powers, they could operate extremely similarly to how
>> I believe Organizations are intended t
On 09/02/17 17:37, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I think we could upgrade Agencies to that they can hold Shinies
> themselves. With that plus proper Powers, they could operate extremely
> similarly to how I believe Organizations are intended to. (And even
> WITHOUT that, they still can, although with a bi
I think we could upgrade Agencies to that they can hold Shinies themselves.
With that plus proper Powers, they could operate extremely similarly to how
I believe Organizations are intended to. (And even WITHOUT that, they still
can, although with a bit less safety because its not as stalwart as "br
On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 23:45 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I don’t support this. I see little harm in keeping an interesting
> game mechanic in the ruleset, especially if we make it clear that it
> is not necessary for beginners to understand.
I still like the concept behind Organizations, but ther
I don’t support this. I see little harm in keeping an interesting game mechanic
in the ruleset, especially if we make it clear that it is not necessary for
beginners to understand. If necessary, we could add a rule along the lines of
{{{
There is a report switch called idleness with values Idle
On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 05:01 +, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Everyone (not directed at o in particular) e is a singular gender
> neutral pronoun.
Gender-neutral /and/ sentience-neutral. This works well in situations
where you allow legal documents to become players and need a pronoun
for them.
I agr
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:54 PM Owen Jacobson wrote:
> My proposal would have inadvertently allowed non-players to keep eir shiny
> balances, which I did not intend. I withdraw the proposal “Organization
> Repeal” and submit the following proposal in its place:
Everyone (not directed at o in par
11 matches
Mail list logo
