On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 16:50 -0700, Taral wrote:
>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Aaron Goldfein
>> wrote:
>> > Proposal: Legislative Dominance (AI = 2)
>>
>> I pledge to vote AGAINST this proposal.
>>
>> (As a note: If it passes, I will not
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Quazie wrote:
>> I retract the above proposal.
>>
>> I submit a new proposal entitled "And then there was silence." ai=2
>> with the following body:
>>
>> Append the following to R2126:
>>
>> The day after agora's birthday 2009 this rule repeal's itself.
>>
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
> I submit the following proposal entitled "And then there was silence",
> AI=2 please, with the following body:
>
> Repeal rule 2126 the day after agora's birthday.
>
Please retract this. It's most appropriate to do this in combination
with the new thing, that
Quazie wrote:
> I retract the above proposal.
>
> I submit a new proposal entitled "And then there was silence." ai=2
> with the following body:
>
> Append the following to R2126:
>
> The day after agora's birthday 2009 this rule repeal's itself.
>
I will only vote for this if something else i
Quazie wrote:
> I submit a new proposal entitled "And then there was silence." ai=2
> with the following body:
>
> Append the following to R2126:
>
> The day after agora's birthday 2009 this rule repeal's itself.
>
Rules 2228 and 2229 also need to be updated.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Quazie wrote:
> I submit the following proposal entitled "And then there was silence",
> AI=2 please, with the following body:
>
> Repeal rule 2126 the day after agora's birthday.
Unless this is retroactive to the last birthday, that's a no-op
(except, apparently,
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> As far as I can tell, there's a rough a-d consensus that Notes should be
> killed the day after Agora's Birthday and replaced with something
> different. Cards would make quite a good something different, IMO.
Sounds good to me.
--
Taral
"Pl
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 16:20 -0400, Quazie wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > By the way, I really, really, really, really don't think that Cards
> > and Notes (in current complexity) should exist at the same time. -G.
> I believe notes should die. Or, notes should be
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Taral wrote:
>> > I guess I'm a little touchy right now because the game has been very
>> > chaotic recently.
>>
>> I submit the following proposal, Tap the
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
Care to re-proto that? Or send the proto just to me and I'll help you
deal (HA pun) with the card rules?
>>> If I can find it I will. -G.
>>
>> By t
Goethe wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
>>> Care to re-proto that? Or send the proto just to me and I'll help you
>>> deal (HA pun) with the card rules?
>> If I can find it I will. -G.
>
> By the way, I really, really, really, really don't t
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
>>> Care to re-proto that? Or send the proto just to me and I'll help you
>>> deal (HA pun) with the card rules?
>>
>> If I can find it I will. -G.
>
> By the way
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
>> Care to re-proto that? Or send the proto just to me and I'll help you
>> deal (HA pun) with the card rules?
>
> If I can find it I will. -G.
By the way, I really, really, really, really don't think that Cards
and No
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
> Care to re-proto that? Or send the proto just to me and I'll help you
> deal (HA pun) with the card rules?
If I can find it I will. -G.
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> Well, the problem is if the proposal's been flipped to undistributable
> with 4 support, it could be flipped back with 2 support, which is weird
> to say the least. Maybe it should need 6 support to reflip it back, and
> likewise the notes should go 1 to fl
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 12:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable
with 2 Support,
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Quazie wrote:
>
>> If we are bringing back distributability, i'm going to try to bring
>> back cards. The issue is that cards need to be a core part of the
>> rules or they can't have the power to change things like these
>> switches. Is there any way that
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 13:00 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 12:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable
> >> with 2 Support, or by spending one Note.
> >>
> >> A player CA
Quazie wrote:
> If we are bringing back distributability, i'm going to try to bring
> back cards. The issue is that cards need to be a core part of the
> rules or they can't have the power to change things like these
> switches. Is there any way that a contest could currently flip a
> switch lik
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 12:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable
>>> with 2 Support, or by spending one Note.
>>>
>>> A player CAN flip a s
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 12:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable
>> with 2 Support, or by spending one Note.
>>
>> A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Undistributable
>>
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 12:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable
>> with 2 Support, or by spending one Note.
>>
>> A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Undistributable
>> with 4 Su
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 12:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable
> with 2 Support, or by spending one Note.
>
> A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Undistributable
> with 4 Support, or by spending two Notes.
It sh
c-walker wrote:
> This. Is anyone willing to maintain a Schroedingor's report, even
> if unofficially?
Weekly, at least; some points of confusion are fast-moving.
2009/5/13 Charles Walker :
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>
>> Taral wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin
>> > wrote:
>> >> Oh bribery proposals are cute. It's a good test every so often to see
>> >> if the current players are a group of voters you wa
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Taral wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
> >> Oh bribery proposals are cute. It's a good test every so often to see
> >> if the current players are a group of voters you want to be playing a
> game
> >> with. A
Taral wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Oh bribery proposals are cute. It's a good test every so often to see
>> if the current players are a group of voters you want to be playing a game
>> with. And deregistration is good test to use as, whichever the answer,
>>
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Oh bribery proposals are cute. It's a good test every so often to see
> if the current players are a group of voters you want to be playing a game
> with. And deregistration is good test to use as, whichever the answer,
> one doesn't have to
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 19:07 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I see this proposal not as a way for me to be a jackass, but to reveal
> a part of the game as flawed. Scamming is something that is very
> intricate in the game, and as a result it should be expected that
> someone would submit a proposal
On Tue, 12 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Yally wrote:
>
>> Proposal: Legislative Dominance (AI = 2)
>
> Conditional: {
> if the proposal would not be adopted if I voted AGAINST,
>then AGAINST,
> otherwise if the proposal would not be adopted if I didn't vote,
>then no vote,
> otherwise
On Tue, 12 May 2009, Taral wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
>> I see this proposal not as a way for me to be a jackass, but to reveal a
>> part of the game as flawed. Scamming is something that is very intricate in
>> the game, and as a result it should be expect
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:15 PM, comex wrote:
> How is that any different from, say, inactivating people, or making
> contracts contests? It's all switches and flipping.
It's a metagame distinction. This is tatamount to saying "support this
scam or get kicked out of the game".
--
Taral
"Pleas
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Yally wrote:
>
>> Proposal: Legislative Dominance (AI = 2)
>
> Conditional: {
> if the proposal would not be adopted if I voted AGAINST,
> then AGAINST,
> otherwise if the proposal would not be adopted if I didn't vote,
> then no vote,
> otherwise FOR
> }
>
Cond
Yally wrote:
> Proposal: Legislative Dominance (AI = 2)
Conditional: {
if the proposal would not be adopted if I voted AGAINST,
then AGAINST,
otherwise if the proposal would not be adopted if I didn't vote,
then no vote,
otherwise FOR
}
As a general rule, a high-powered proposal can do anything.
On 2009-05-13, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Quazie wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Taral wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Aaron Goldfein
>> >
>> wrote:
>> >> Proposal: Legislative D
The Walrus scam caused deregistrations. My Outrage-O-Meter suggests
this passing would lead to your house being set on fire.
On 2009-05-13, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Proposal: Legislative Dominance (AI = 2)
>
> All players who vote FOR this proposal (at the time the voting period ends)
> and never
comex wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Taral wrote:
>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Aaron Goldfein
>> wrote:
>>> I see this proposal not as a way for me to be a jackass, but to reveal a
>>> part of the game as flawed. Scamming is something that is very intricate in
>>> the game, and
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Taral wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> > I see this proposal not as a way for me to be a jackass, but to reveal a
> > part of the game as flawed. Scamming is something that is very intricate
> in
> > the game, and as a result it
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Taral wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
>> I see this proposal not as a way for me to be a jackass, but to reveal a
>> part of the game as flawed. Scamming is something that is very intricate in
>> the game, and as a result it shou
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I see this proposal not as a way for me to be a jackass, but to reveal a
> part of the game as flawed. Scamming is something that is very intricate
> in the game, and as a result it should be expected that someone would
> submit a proposal like this. Instead of getting angry
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I see this proposal not as a way for me to be a jackass, but to reveal a
> part of the game as flawed. Scamming is something that is very intricate in
> the game, and as a result it should be expected that someone would submit a
> proposal l
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Quazie wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Taral wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> >> Proposal: Legislative Dominance (AI = 2)
> >
> > I pledge to vote AGAINST this proposal.
> >
> > (As a note: If it passes, I will not
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Taral wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> > Proposal: Legislative Dominance (AI = 2)
>
> I pledge to vote AGAINST this proposal.
>
> (As a note: If it passes, I will not come back. Enjoy your empty game.)
>
> --
> Taral
> "Please
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Proposal: Legislative Dominance (AI = 2)
Time to bring back the "no bribes" clause?
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
44 matches
Mail list logo
