On 4/17/23 16:33, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
There doesn't seem to be a cost to giving people more options like this, so
I'll just give this a shot too:
I create and submit the following Proposal:
Title: Unradiance v2
AI: 1.0
Author: Yachay
Co-Authors: None
{
From rule 2657,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:37 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On 2/28/23 13:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> > [Since we're going through an extra-pedantic period on R105...]
> >
> > I withdraw my proposal Populist Priming and submit the following proposal:
> > ---
On 2/28/23 13:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> [Since we're going through an extra-pedantic period on R105...]
>
> I withdraw my proposal Populist Priming and submit the following proposal:
> --
> Title: Populist Priming
> AI: 2
> Author: G.
>
On 7/2/22 00:04, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> When a stone is cascaded, the Rule defining that stone applies the effects in
> that stone's scroll.
This doesn't work due to power.
--
Jason Cobb
Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
On 2020-09-04 18:38, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 9/4/20 2:29 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
>> I vote FOR Proposal 8493.
>
>
> By the timestamps in my client, this was about 9 minutes after the
> voting period ends.
Alas. I was taking a "shoot first, ask questions later"
On 9/4/20 2:29 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
> I vote FOR Proposal 8493.
By the timestamps in my client, this was about 9 minutes after the
voting period ends.
--
Jason Cobb
On 8/31/20 6:49 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 8/31/20 5:41 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
>> I point my finger at nix for failure to specify quorum above, in
>> violation of Rule 879.
>>
>> -Aris
> For the record, if I had realized this was a SHALL I wouldn't have
> skipped
On 8/31/20 5:41 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> I point my finger at nix for failure to specify quorum above, in
> violation of Rule 879.
>
> -Aris
For the record, if I had realized this was a SHALL I wouldn't have
skipped it. The rules for distribution are a mess.
--
nix
Prime M
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:31 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On Aug 28, 2020, at 5:17 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3:
> > --
> On Aug 28, 2020, at 7:20 PM, nix via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> On 8/28/20 1:09 PM, nix via agora-business wrote:
>> On 8/28/20 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
>>> I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3:
>>> --
> On Aug 28, 2020, at 5:17 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business
> wrote:
>
>
> I submit the following proposal, "Minor Adjustments", AI-3:
> ---
>
> Increase the power of Rule 2633 (Rulebending) to 3.
>
> ---
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> A rule which purports to allow a person (a special deputy) to
> perform an action via special deputisation for an office thereby
> allows them to perform the action by announcement, as long as
You're missing deputisation's "
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 16:06, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> > Proposal: War (AI = 2)
>
> I don't think this addresses the issue with simultaneous point gains, does
> it?
>
It does. Basically if two people at war simultaneously drop each other's
scores
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Proposal: War (AI = 2)
I don't think this addresses the issue with simultaneous point gains, does it?
On 26 April 2011 19:00, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I retract the proposal War and submit the following proposal:
>
> Proposal: War (AI = 2)
>
> Create a new Rule, entitled "War," with the following text:
>
> Hostility is a switch for subsets of players of size 2 tracked by the
> Scorekeepor, with val
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Well, crap. H. Majority Leader ais523, would you please veto this
> when it comes up for vote, so Rule 2198 won't block it?
I'm pretty sure the veto changes the adoption index of the decision,
not of the proposal.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> True, it should probably be something like
> "A person CAN, without three objections, cause a contract [to which e
> is party] to become a Bank"
> (do we need to restrict it to parties?)
I don't think it's necessary considering the W3O.
--
-
c. wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
A Bank is a public contract whose purpose includes facilitating a
means of asset exchange between players. Any party to a contract CAN cause
that
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> A Bank is a public contract whose purpose includes facilitating a
>>> means of asset exchange between players. Any party to a contract CAN cause
>>> that
>>> contract to be
comex wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> A Bank is a public contract whose purpose includes facilitating a
>> means of asset exchange between players. Any party to a contract CAN cause
>> that
>> contract to become a Bank without three objections.
>
> Which contract?
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> A Bank is a public contract whose purpose includes facilitating a
> means of asset exchange between players. Any party to a contract CAN cause
> that
> contract to become a Bank without three objections.
Which contract?
> Any player CAN trans
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> {{
> Penalty Box - Specify an entity. Playing this card announces intent to
> audit that entity With Notice, so long as that entity is not audited
> between the time this card is played and the time intent is resolved.
> }}
Useless; has the sam
Roger Hicks wrote:
> Append to the numbered list in R1728 ("Dependent Actions"), bullet item a):
> {{
> 4) With Notice.
> }}
You should also replace "if the action depends on objections" with "if
the action depends on objections or notice" in bullet item b).
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:35, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Each player has a non-negative integer value Hand Limit (default 15).
>> The Hand Limit of each player is tracked by the Registrar.
>
> I'd make this Accountor too (goes along with salary switches), oth
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Each player has a non-negative integer value Hand Limit (default 15).
> The Hand Limit of each player is tracked by the Registrar.
I'd make this Accountor too (goes along with salary switches), otherwise
the information starts to get really scattered.
Roger Hicks wrote:
> Shrink Potion - Specify a player. That player's Hand Limit is
> decreased by 5% (rounded up).
I think this should be "decreased by 1".
Tiger wrote:
> 2009/6/10 Benjamin Caplan :
>> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I act on behalf of coppro to support this. I act on behalf of Pavitra
to support this. I act on behalf of zeckalpha to support this. Having
received sufficient support, I m
That was what zooping did.
On 2009-06-10, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> 2009/6/10 Benjamin Caplan :
>> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I act on behalf of coppro to support this. I act on behalf of Pavitra
to support this. I act on behalf of zeckalpha to suppo
2009/6/10 Benjamin Caplan :
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>>> I act on behalf of coppro to support this. I act on behalf of Pavitra
>>> to support this. I act on behalf of zeckalpha to support this. Having
>>> received sufficient support, I make this proposal dis
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> I act on behalf of coppro to support this. I act on behalf of Pavitra
>> to support this. I act on behalf of zeckalpha to support this. Having
>> received sufficient support, I make this proposal distributable.
>
> You should come u
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
Oops. I've confused the new players. I act on behalf of allispaul to
support this. Having received sufficient support, I make
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>>> Oops. I've confused the new players. I act on behalf of allispaul to
>>> support this. Having received sufficient support, I make this proposal
>>> distributable.
>> The trick i
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> Oops. I've confused the new players. I act on behalf of allispaul to
>> support this. Having received sufficient support, I make this proposal
>> distributable.
> The trick is that allispaul is named Paul.
Funny, I still have that pr
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Oops. I've confused the new players. I act on behalf of allispaul to
> support this. Having received sufficient support, I make this proposal
> distributable.
The trick is that allispaul is named Paul.
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> Proposal: No More Distributability (AI = 2, II = 2)
>>
>> Amend Rule 1607 (The Promotor) to read:
>>
>> The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for
>> receiving and distributing proposals.
>>
>>
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I act on behalf of coppro to support this. I act on behalf of Pavitra
> to support this. I act on behalf of zeckalpha to support this. Having
> received sufficient support, I make this proposal distributable.
You should come up with an acronym for this.
2009/4/28 Kerim Aydin :
>
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Aaron Goldfein
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Anarchist's proposals are rarely accepted. This proposal proposes two
>>> changes, both of which serve the purpose of having the Anarchist's proposals
>>>
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
>
>> The Anarchist's proposals are rarely accepted. This proposal proposes two
>> changes, both of which serve the purpose of having the Anarchist's proposals
>> actually be accepted. First, the
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> The Anarchist's proposals are rarely accepted. This proposal proposes two
> changes, both of which serve the purpose of having the Anarchist's proposals
> actually be accepted. First, the Anarchist is given the power to select the
> rules e
2009/4/25 Roger Hicks
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 12:03, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> > A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent
> > to a reserve forum if all public fora are not functional, or
> > sent to all players and containing a clear designation of inten
On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 13:20 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or, if
> the sender reasonably believes no public forum to be available
> and functional, sent via a reserve forum or directly all players
> containing a clear d
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 12:03, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent
> to a reserve forum if all public fora are not functional, or
> sent to all players and containing a clear designation of intent
> to be public. A person
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:54 -0600, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> Proposal: Democracy When Reasonable (AI = 2, II = 0)
> {
> Change the text of rule 2142, Support Democracy from:
> A player CAN, with 2 suppor
pikhq wrote:
> I do all my text editing by controlling butterflies, thereby affecting
> the weather enough to flip bits on my hard drive.
>
> Idea courtesy of Randall Munroe.
Real programmers set the universal constants at the start such that the
universe evolves to contain the disk with the dat
On 20:00 Fri 08 Feb , Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
> >>> This message brought to you by GNU Emacs.
> >>
> >> http://www.notepad.org/
> >>
> > Bah, any editor that can't psychoanalyze a pinhead is completely
> > unusable for any purpose.
>
> http://ars.us
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> This message brought to you by GNU Emacs.
>>
>> http://www.notepad.org/
>>
> Bah, any editor that can't psychoanalyze a pinhead is completely
> unusable for any purpose.
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080206
On Feb 8, 2008 7:33 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2008 5:05 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > You are *insane*.
> >
> > This message brought to you by GNU Emacs.
> >
>
> http://www.notepad.org/
>
Bah, any editor that can't psychoanalyze a pinhead is c
On Feb 8, 2008 5:05 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You are *insane*.
>
> This message brought to you by GNU Emacs.
>
http://www.notepad.org/
On 17:01 Fri 08 Feb , Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2008 3:08 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 2008 5:04 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Ah, yes. The strange ruleset formatting. I typically write my
> > > proposals either in gmail (text-only) or notepad.
> >
On Feb 8, 2008 3:08 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2008 5:04 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ah, yes. The strange ruleset formatting. I typically write my
> > proposals either in gmail (text-only) or notepad.
> I recommend you get a good Windows editor like notepad+
On Feb 8, 2008 5:04 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, yes. The strange ruleset formatting. I typically write my
> proposals either in gmail (text-only) or notepad.
I recommend you get a good Windows editor like notepad++ or editpad
lite or something. (Not a guarantee that those will
On Feb 8, 2008 2:57 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> >I didn't modify anything except the text.
>
> The text is one of the attributes of a proposal that you can't modify
> after submission. I suggest that you withdraw your existing proposal
> and submit a new one that h
On Feb 8, 2008 2:50 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2008 4:43 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Unwrapped?
>
> Not hard wrapped to 70 characters per line of which 6 at the beginning
> are spaces, i.e.
> As soon as possible after the beginning of each month the IA
Roger Hicks wrote:
>I didn't modify anything except the text.
The text is one of the attributes of a proposal that you can't modify
after submission. I suggest that you withdraw your existing proposal
and submit a new one that has the text that you want.
-zefram
On Feb 8, 2008 11:51 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> >I revise my proposal titled Ostracism v2 as follows:
>
> You can't modify any of these attributes of a proposal after submission.
> I suggest that you withdraw the existing proposal and submit a new one.
>
I didn't m
On Feb 8, 2008 4:43 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unwrapped?
Not hard wrapped to 70 characters per line of which 6 at the beginning
are spaces, i.e.
As soon as possible after the beginning of each month the IADoP
SHALL initiate an dependent action to ostracize with a
...
On Feb 8, 2008 11:53 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/8/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I revise my proposal titled Ostracism v2 as follows:
> >
> > unwrapped proposal
>
> Call me pedantic, but I still dislike unwrapped proposals. A pity,
> since I otherwise support this
On Feb 8, 2008 11:53 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Call me pedantic, but I still dislike unwrapped proposals.
So do I, but I wouldn't base my vote upon that.
-root
On 2/8/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I revise my proposal titled Ostracism v2 as follows:
>
> unwrapped proposal
Call me pedantic, but I still dislike unwrapped proposals. A pity,
since I otherwise support this entirely.
This seems long and cumbersome, two full decisions. Maybe the initial
vote should be Agoran Consent (same 2/3 majority index?). You should
also re-write the first decision to be enabling as well as requiring,
in other words "if the outcome is APPROVED, the IADoP CAN and SHALL as
soon as poss
Roger Hicks wrote:
>decision, the valid options are the players, the eligible voters are
>the active players, quorum is 1/2 the number of active players
>(rounded down), and the vote collector is the IADoP.
The eligible voters should be only the (active) *first-class* players.
Quorum should be sim
61 matches
Mail list logo
