Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...

2008-10-27 Thread Ian Kelly
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:50 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine. >>> >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...

2008-10-27 Thread warrigal
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine. >> >> Messing them up via proposal is not. > > Why? The whole point of making a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...

2008-10-27 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > Yet my proposed changes to the PRS to limit its economic point-trading > abuse potential were shot down. That doesn't help. You made those as within-contest change attempts while you elevated to contest based on Proposal, so are using different standards

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...

2008-10-27 Thread Roger Hicks
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:43, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's >>> still too annoying, you could p

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...

2008-10-27 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's >> still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though >> I'd like to kill that annoying PRS

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...

2008-10-27 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's >> still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though >> I'd like to kill that annoying PRS

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...

2008-10-27 Thread Ian Kelly
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 27 Oct 2008, at 17:06, Ian Kelly wrote: > >> Why? The whole point of making an R1728 contract is to let the >> contract be governed by Agora. Messing with things by proposal is a >> long tradition in Agora. > > > It'd

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...

2008-10-27 Thread Ian Kelly
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's > still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though > I'd like to kill that annoying PRS first). -G. Yes, messing with contracts i

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...

2008-10-27 Thread Taral
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What's so annoying about the PRS? Personally I think it should have been a Rule. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...

2008-10-27 Thread Roger Hicks
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's > still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though > I'd like to kill that annoying PRS first). -G. > What's so annoying about the PR

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...

2008-10-27 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird >> Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine. >> >> Messing them up via proposal is not. > > Why? The whole point of making an R1728 contract is to let the > contract be governed by Ago

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...

2008-10-27 Thread Elliott Hird
On 27 Oct 2008, at 17:06, Ian Kelly wrote: Why? The whole point of making an R1728 contract is to let the contract be governed by Agora. Messing with things by proposal is a long tradition in Agora. It'd help if this were actually interesting. Even comex doesn't approve eir own proposal;

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...

2008-10-27 Thread Ian Kelly
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 27 Oct 2008, at 03:56, Ian Kelly wrote: > >> Ironic. > > > Oh? Not very. > > Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine. > > Messing them up via proposal is not. Why? The whole point of making a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...

2008-10-27 Thread Elliott Hird
On 27 Oct 2008, at 03:56, Ian Kelly wrote: Ironic. Oh? Not very. Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine. Messing them up via proposal is not. -- ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: Down with the PBA! er...

2008-10-26 Thread Ian Kelly
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I support. I mean, really, don't meddle with other people's contracts, okay? Ironic. -root