Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup on Aisle 869

Are you going to resolve this? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:30 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Remind me not to sign the message where I resolve this. > > Gaelan > > On May 23, 2017, at 8:27 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On May 23, 2017, at 2:38 PM, Gaelan Steele

DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup on Aisle 869

Remind me not to sign the message where I resolve this. Gaelan > On May 23, 2017, at 8:27 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On May 23, 2017, at 2:38 PM, Gaelan Steele > > wrote: >> >> Fast Resolution doesn’t work if there are lots of non-voting players sitting >> around

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup Time (and Markdown reward agency)

I did. Gaelan > On May 19, 2017, at 2:54 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > Well, since you have had objection you must begin again. > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > >> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> uhh. I meant “rule changes.” >> >> Fo

DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup Time (and Markdown reward agency)

Well, since you have had objection you must begin again. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > uhh. I meant “rule changes.” > > For each of the following rule changes, I intend to cause “Cleanup Time” > to make that change, without Objectio

DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup Time (and Markdown reward agency)

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 18:23 Gaelan Steele wrote: > I intend to cause “Cleanup Time” to make the following rules, without > Objection: > > Amend the following rules by replacing a), b), etc. with 1., 2., etc (when > used at the beginning of a line): > > “Bankruptcy” > “Organizational Restructuri

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup Time (and Markdown reward agency)

I’m using https://github.com/vmg/redcarpet ; I’m not aware of any online tools that let you test Redcarpet. Of course, you could just test it against my ruleset repo. (Bonus points if you give me a PR!) Let me know if you need help getting it to work. Gaelan >

DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

Oops. That really was totally unnecessary. I forgot that the Proposal Pool from the report is self ratifying. -Aris On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > [I don't think this is necessary, but it hasn't been done in quite a > while, and it seems like a good idea.] > > As Promoto

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

On 06/26/2012 09:22 AM, Noé Rubinstein wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Aaron Goldfein > wrote: >> For each player, I intend, without objection, to deregister em. > > I abject. I separate.

DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > For each player, I intend, without objection, to deregister em. I abject. -- Noé Rubinstein.

DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:58 AM, ais523 wrote: > > You can. This deregistration mechanism is basically to clear out players > who are no longer paying attention to the game; in fact, it's usual and > intended for the player targeted to be the player who objects. > > Along similar lines, I object

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Pavitra wrote: > I morally object to this objection, as a player can straightforwardly > determine whether e is included via the algorithm {return true;}. In practice, it only applies to players who have been inactive for at least 3 months - 4-14 days; that may or

DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

On 06/24/2012 07:19 PM, omd wrote: > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Aaron Goldfein > wrote: >> For each player, I intend, without objection, to deregister em. > > I object to all of these, as you could do those players the favor of > naming them so they can more easily determine whether they'r

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Sunday, July 5, 2009, C-walker wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Charles Reiss wrote: >>> I would prefer the contracts to be terminated to be explicitly >>> enumerated in any contract cleanup proposal or action. And, well, the >>> Notar

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

On Sunday, July 5, 2009, C-walker wrote: > On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Charles Reiss wrote: >> I would prefer the contracts to be terminated to be explicitly >> enumerated in any contract cleanup proposal or action. And, well, the >> Notary already CAN do this without objection (which should b

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Charles Reiss wrote: > I would prefer the contracts to be terminated to be explicitly > enumerated in any contract cleanup proposal or action. And, well, the > Notary already CAN do this without objection (which should be done > first, to limit contracts terminated b

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

On 7/5/09 10:01 AM, C-walker wrote: > On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Charles Reiss wrote: > >> On 7/5/09 6:54 AM, C-walker wrote: >> [snip] >> >>> I submit the following proposal: >>> >>> {{ >>> >>> Contract Cleanup (AI = 2, II = 0) >>> >>> Terminate each non-pledge Public contract which

DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Charles Reiss wrote: > > On 7/5/09 6:54 AM, C-walker wrote: > [snip] > > I submit the following proposal: > > > > {{ > > > > Contract Cleanup (AI = 2, II = 0) > > > > Terminate each non-pledge Public contract which does not contain the > > string "inferences". > > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 4:37 PM, comex wrote: > > On Jul 5, 2009, at 9:54 AM, C-walker > wrote: > >> >> Contract Cleanup (AI = 2, II = 0) >> >> Terminate each non-pledge Public contract which does not contain the >> string "inferences". >> > > Wait, what!? > Sorry, I should have explained that. T

DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

Sent from my iPhone On Jul 5, 2009, at 9:54 AM, C-walker wrote: Contract Cleanup (AI = 2, II = 0) Terminate each non-pledge Public contract which does not contain the string "inferences". Wait, what!?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 02:30, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Roger Hicks wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 02:19, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Roger Hicks wrote: On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 02:17, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 200

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 02:19, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Roger Hicks wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 02:17, Roger Hicks wrote: On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 21:13, Ed Murphy wrote: > I spend Ab Ab to destroy

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 02:19, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Roger Hicks wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 02:17, Roger Hicks wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 21:13, Ed Murphy wrote: I spend Ab Ab to destroy one of my Rests. I spend Ab Ab to destroy one of my

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 02:17, Roger Hicks wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 21:13, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> I spend Ab Ab to destroy one of my Rests. >>> I spend Ab Ab to destroy one of my Rests. >>> I spend Ab Ab to destroy one of my Rests. >>> >>

DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 02:17, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 21:13, Ed Murphy wrote: >> I spend Ab Ab to destroy one of my Rests. >> I spend Ab Ab to destroy one of my Rests. >> I spend Ab Ab to destroy one of my Rests. >> > I believe only the first two of these are effective as you

DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup

On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 21:13, Ed Murphy wrote: > I spend Ab Ab to destroy one of my Rests. > I spend Ab Ab to destroy one of my Rests. > I spend Ab Ab to destroy one of my Rests. > I believe only the first two of these are effective as you only have one rest. 06/15:002 called by Yally (which would