This one's a really good idea in principle: last time we tried it, someone
who believed in free proposals whipped up a "anyone can act on my behalf
to support creating/pending a proposal" contract. Not sure if it's worth
making exceptions to act-on-behalf for such things or if that becomes too
That really wasn't the point to take away from that message, but okay.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 11:39 ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 11:37 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > Even simpler: players can submit proposals but a different person has
> > to
On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 11:37 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Even simpler: players can submit proposals but a different person has
> to pend them, after checking for mistakes. Oh, and it has to be an
> active player.
Given that pending isn't in the rules at the moment, the dependent
action version is
Even simpler: players can submit proposals but a different person has to
pend them, after checking for mistakes. Oh, and it has to be an active
player.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 11:32 Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Proto: create proposals with 1 support. Supporter SHOULD check the
> proposal against [list of
Proto: create proposals with 1 support. Supporter SHOULD check the proposal
against [list of common mistakes we keep somewhere]
Gaelan
> On Nov 1, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> When I wrote Paydays (I think I drafted that text), I purposefully wanted
> Speaker to be a sinecur
When I wrote Paydays (I think I drafted that text), I purposefully wanted
Speaker to be a sinecure with a salary, as a perk for winning.
Aside: I really hate the lack of pending, and just plopping proposals in
the pool without review (including mine). Watching the proposals in the
last coupl
Hold up, were you even around when we had shinies? Are you just an Agoran
History nerd? This seems like a mistake only a person who joined before
your time cold have committed.
On Nov 1, 2018 10:30, "Timon Walshe-Grey" wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
On 11-04-24 02:53 PM, Charles Walker wrote:
Why do you intend to give several offices which have no monthly duties
a monthly salary?
I did not consider that only weekly duties imply weekly salaries and
only monthly duties imply monthly salaries. It is important to have
stable Promotor and CotC
On 24 April 2011 18:55, Sean Hunt wrote:
> For each office and for its Weekly and Monthly Salaries, I intend, without
> two objections and with Agoran Consent, to change that salary as described
> below:
>
> Office {Weekly Salary, Monthly Salary}
> Assessor {6, 0}
> CotC {8, 10}
> Herald {0, 6}
>
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Pavitra wrote:
>> I flip my Salary to {Change,Change,Change,Government}.
>
> If we adopt the simplification (down to one deck), any thoughts on
> preserving the "choose your specialty" feature of draws? I really like
> that and it's being used and it rea
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I'd be ok with this.
I'll put in a generic "base" salary that everyone starts with that has some
probability for all cards, so anyone who doesn't want to "play the subgame"
doesn't have to and will still get the basics.
That's actually a very good way to
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:39, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Pavitra wrote:
>> I flip my Salary to {Change,Change,Change,Government}.
>
> If we adopt the simplification (down to one deck), any thoughts on
> preserving the "choose your specialty" feature of draws? I really like
> that
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Pavitra wrote:
> I flip my Salary to {Change,Change,Change,Government}.
If we adopt the simplification (down to one deck), any thoughts on
preserving the "choose your specialty" feature of draws? I really like
that and it's being used and it really adds strategy and economi
13 matches
Mail list logo
