DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly report

Janet wrote: On 12/2/24 09:21, juan via agora-official wrote: Selected commits dad9620 Remove ■'s deadname from record This will be reflected in the next monthly report. I only publicize this because I want to make it clear that other players may request similar th

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

I opine in favor of a forgivable one blot fine, and recommend the words "tardiness", "game", "verisimilitude", "spirit", "incoherence", "celebration", "wrath", "assiduity", "impurity", and "supersubtilize". I further request that the apology contain a portion referring to the Spirit of the Game, wh

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

I'll have to go and investigate that. On 01/14/2018 08:35 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jan 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > >> >>    Registrar's Weekly Report >> ---

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

I think that because there is no requirement that the report be in one message, it probably doesn't need to be. However, there is a requirement that the report contain certain information. It thus seems reasonable that the report is published at the moment its last component is published, and the s

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 3:02 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > lmao sorry if accusing you of "alternative facts" is rude, Not at all! I’d prefer that incorrect readings were bought to my attention, because otherwise, how am I to learn? -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

lmao sorry if accusing you of "alternative facts" is rude, On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Nov 7, 2017, at 1:56 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > > >>> The idea of a single “weekly report” or “monthly report" is a > convenience > > for the officer and a modern expectation ove

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 1:56 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > >>> The idea of a single “weekly report” or “monthly report" is a convenience > for the officer and a modern expectation overlaid by gameplay convention in > the last couple of years, not a >>matter of the rules. > > Uh this is a bit of alternative

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

>>The idea of a single “weekly report” or “monthly report" is a convenience for the officer and a modern expectation overlaid by gameplay convention in the last couple of years, not a >>matter of the rules. Uh this is a bit of alternative facts, o. >From rule 2162 "That officer's (weekly, if not

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

Some gratuity: > On Nov 4, 2017, at 6:06 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > I AP CFJ the following: The below document claiming to be the Registrar's > Weekly Report was not a report. > > Arguments: The Registrar is required to track Emotion switches (2514).. E > didn’t. The idea of “a report” as a sing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

So, I have checked the archives on my computer and I believe that is accurate. On 11/05/2017 02:03 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 at 14:01 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > wrote: > > ATMunn and nichdel were joyous. o and VJ Rada were

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 at 14:01 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > ATMunn and nichdel were joyous. o and VJ Rada were not because they > changed their mood not their emotion. I publish the below addition as a > revision: > ATMunn - Joyous > nichdel- Joyous

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 at 06:38 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Denied, per 2514 Indifferent is the default, and no player held a > different emotion, and I only need to report nondefault values. > CoE again: No, they definitely held nondefault values.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

o was not, but VJ Rada was. I will hold off on a correction, while waiting for comments. On 11/05/2017 01:55 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 at 13:41 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > wrote: > > I CoE that neither of my reports contain

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

On Sun, 2017-11-05 at 06:39 -0500, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Denied, per 2514 Indifferent is the default, and no player held a > different emotion, and I only need to report nondefault values. See rule 2379. That was added specifially as a consequence of me trying to use an argument

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

You still need to report empty lists see rule 2379. On Sun, 5 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Denied, per 2514 Indifferent is the default, and no player held a > different emotion, and I only need to report nondefault values. > > On 11/04/2017 06:09 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > Als

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

Denied, per 2514 Indifferent is the default, and no player held a different emotion, and I only need to report nondefault values. On 11/04/2017 06:09 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > Also: CoE this report has no emotion switches. > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 9:06 AM, VJ Rada > wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report and Addenda

It was not intended as such and it was rather intended as a description of my own behavior. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Sep 4, 2017, at 8:02 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Sun, 2017-09-03 at 17:33 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote:

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report and Addenda

On Sun, 2017-09-03 at 17:33 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > STUPIDITY: I CoE that the deregistrations weren’t processed. The way this is worded makes me think that a stupidity is a type of game action. -- ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

Accepted, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Aug 28, 2017, at 6:46 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > COE: this report omits the value of the Floating Value switch, required by > rule 2139 (“The Registrar”) and rule 2497 (“Floating Value”). > > -o > >> O

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >> * Nonempty list A, [missing: nonempty list B] >> * Nonempty list A, [missing: empty list B, statement that list B is >>empty] >> * Nonempty list A, empty list B, [missing: statement that list

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

That seems likely. Also, if it ratified, I don't think it would do anything. Rule 1551: "A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message. When a public document is ratified, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at the time the rati

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 17:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > In other words, if there's no portion of the report purporting to be > that particular section, the switches don't ratify. Oh wow, the "purports to be" protection was mostly AFAIK intended to save us in places where the report wasn't actually

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > * Nonempty list A, [missing: nonempty list B] > * Nonempty list A, [missing: empty list B, statement that list B is >empty] > * Nonempty list A, empty list B, [missing: statement that list B is >empty] > > I can't see any reason why list B woul

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 17:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > The report must "include the fact that the list is empty".  I think, > in plain language, this must be something like a sentence "there are no > non-default values for the X switch."  Otherwise the fact is not "included." I agree that this is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 17:03 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > > The Registrar's Report before the one that was CoEd my well have self- > > > ratified the Floating Value as 0 (it's defined as containing a list of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 17:03 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > The Registrar's Report before the one that was CoEd my well have self- > > ratified the Floating Value as 0 (it's defined as containing a list of > > all Floating Value switches that don't have the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > The Registrar's Report before the one that was CoEd my well have self- > ratified the Floating Value as 0 (it's defined as containing a list of > all Floating Value switches that don't have their default value of 0, > thus given that no such list is presen

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

I favor any CFJ(s) coming out of this. -Aris On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 4:44 PM Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 15:46 -0700, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > COE: this report omits the value of the Floating Value switch, > > required by rule 2139 (“The Registrar”) and rule 2497 (“Floating > > Va

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 15:46 -0700, Owen Jacobson wrote: > COE: this report omits the value of the Floating Value switch, > required by rule 2139 (“The Registrar”) and rule 2497 (“Floating > Value”). I was busy writing up a CFJ about whether this was a "stop the gamestate ratifying" sort of COE tha

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

This is invalid; apologies must be of at least 200 words (https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2427 ) Gaelan > On Aug 20, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > I apologies for all wrongs or other cartable offenses I may have co

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

On Sun, 2017-08-13 at 20:15 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > CoE grok is a player If only we could set up a standing order for this or something. The Referee should perhaps at least start giving out cards; a mistake in a report is excusable, making it that many times in a row isn't. -- ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

I believe I already did so. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On May 28, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Nicholas Evans wrote: > > You should correct the player count while you're at it. > > On May 28, 2017 7:30 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" > wrote: > Acc

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

You should correct the player count while you're at it. On May 28, 2017 7:30 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Accepted, I thought I included that. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > On

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

Accepted, I thought I included that. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On May 28, 2017, at 8:26 AM, Martin Rönsch wrote: > > Call of Error: I am also a player > > Veggiekeks > > Am 28.05.2017 um 13:16 schrieb Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: >> I here