I think Rule 2509 is relevant here? 'A "number of (items)", where (items)
is a set of discrete entities, is considered to refer to a non-negative
integer, unless otherwise explicitly specified.'
-Aris
On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 12:58 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>
On 6/1/24 17:25, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/1/24 3:57 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>
>> Actually, the fee-based actions rules don't have any special cases for
>> negative values, and you can't destroy a negative number of assets. So I
>> think if the required fee is neg
On 6/1/24 3:57 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
Actually, the fee-based actions rules don't have any special cases for
negative values, and you can't destroy a negative number of assets. So I
think if the required fee is negative, it's just not possible to do (and
this is... not a crazy
On 6/1/24 14:20, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> The minimum is 0 just because of how paying fees work. You can't possibly
> create spendies or anything.
>
>> On Jun 1, 2024, at 6:08 AM, Mischief via agora-business
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Additionally, I just realized there's no minimum on
On 6/1/24 7:07 AM, Mischief wrote:
On 5/31/24 7:26 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
On 5/26/24 21:33, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
On 5/25/24 13:39, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
9115~ snail 2.0 Lode Stone
Well:
I change my vote on the referen
On 5/28/24 16:16, Matt Smyth via agora-business wrote:
> Oh - does it still count cus I updated the spreadsheet?
The spreadsheet has no legal effect - it doesn't override messages sent
to the lists. Tho, you may be able to argue it impacts the context? A
bit unlikely imo. It would be most effectiv
Oh - does it still count cus I updated the spreadsheet?
On Tue, 28 May 2024, 11:13 pm Janet Cobb via agora-business, <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/27/24 19:12, Matt Smyth via agora-business wrote:
> > I vote as such:
> > vote as follows:
> >>> 9114~ snail 2.0
... whoops
On Sun, 26 May 2024 at 11:43, 4st nomic <4st.no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> sorry Juniper, this was to DIS, make sure you send votes to BUS
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 6:42 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>>
>> I vote as follows:
>>
>> >
>> > > 9114~ snail
sorry Juniper, this was to DIS, make sure you send votes to BUS
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 6:42 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I vote as follows:
>
> >
> > > 9114~ snail 2.0 Grind Stone
> >
> FOR
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > 9115~ snail
I vote as follows:
>
> > 9114~ snail 2.0 Grind Stone
>
FOR
>
>
>
> > 9115~ snail 2.0 Lode Stone
>
FOR
>
> > 9116~ snail, juan...[1] 1.0 A friendly game v2
>
FOR
>
> > 9117~ Mischief1.0 Self-Elimination
>
> PRESENT
>
>
>
>
>
> > 9118~ juniper 1.0 Recursion
>
> PRESENT (for the moment)
>
> I'm not following the train of thought for why the proposed rule wouldn't
> work. To me it reads like a sequence of events: 1) a player creates a
> proposal; 2) e does not vote for it; 3) it passes. (The propos
On 5/25/24 7:05 AM, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
9119* Mischief3.0 Say It Once Mk II
PRESENT, I am not aware of the full implications of this change.
It's meant to remove a redundancy. Rule 1950 secures Adoption Index twice...
Adoption index (AI) is an
12 matches
Mail list logo
