On 2023-11-21 05:39, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> As speaker of Agora, I believe we should enact more rules. More things to
> play around with means more opportunities for fun gameplay! We should
> strive for new subsystems to be added to the game, focusing on simplicity
> and high dept
I'd enjoy something like this
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 5:53 PM juan via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> secretsnail9 via agora-business [2023-11-21 04:39]:
> > As speaker of Agora, I believe we should enact more rules. More things to
> > play around with means more opp
secretsnail9 via agora-business [2023-11-21 04:39]:
> As speaker of Agora, I believe we should enact more rules. More things to
> play around with means more opportunities for fun gameplay! We should
> strive for new subsystems to be added to the game, focusing on simplicity
> and high depth of con
On 2021-06-21 16:21, Rebecca Lee via agora-business wrote:> I then cause
ATMunn, Trigon, Jason and Aris to receive that glitter a second time.
This doesn't work - Rule 2438 "Ribbons" states that glitter can only be
awarded if you haven't been awarded that ribbon or glitter since you
last earne
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016, Aris Merchant wrote:
> You mean it would never pass? It wasn't obvious to me. Anyhow one could
> always just
> declare someone speaker.
> -Aris
It could pass if e convinces or bribes enough people that e'd be a good speaker,
it's a scam if e's got a trick that would give
> On Sep 17, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> Proposal: Voting Strength Fix (AI=1)
> {{{
This looks pretty good overall. I like the generalization of voting strength.
However, I believe this proposal will be ineffective with AI=1 - several of the
rules amended have Power greater than
On Sat, 2016-09-17 at 14:45 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Also, I feel I deserve a reward for fixing this bug:
>
> Proposal: New Speaker (AI=1){{{Enact a new Power-1 rule reading:
> Upon enactment of this rule, Alexis wins and then this rule
> repeals itself.
> }}}-Alexis
I'm not 100% sure th
You mean it would never pass? It wasn't obvious to me. Anyhow one could
always just declare someone speaker.
-Aris
On Saturday, September 17, 2016, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:25 PM Aris Merchant gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
>> The first bit seems fine. The second bit though...
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:25 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The first bit seems fine. The second bit though... Okay, I don't really
> know the precedent on this, but it seems like a fairly minor thing to have
> someone win over. I mean if someone fixes a game-brak
The first bit seems fine. The second bit though... Okay, I don't really
know the precedent on this, but it seems like a fairly minor thing to have
someone win over. I mean if someone fixes a game-braking error, or even a
major one, that makes sense. But this doesn't even break anything. It just
mea
Rule 103, if interpreted in modern Agoran terminology, to the best of
my understanding, does not mean that Michael Norrish could possibly
take hold of the office of Speaker, it means that he is and always has
been the Speaker and every other Speaker has been an impostor.
According to CFJ 2154, Mich
2009/1/18, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com:
>
>
> B actually has precedent in that direction. For instance, their
> equivalent of the Assessor is "The Minister of Change, also known
> as the Chairman or Barack Obama".
>
Oh. I thought our MoC really was Barack Obama.
What a letdown.
--
w1n5t0n
Michael wrote:
> Of course, if they started with the initial ruleset, rather than Agora's
> current one, they need the first speaker to perform all functions...
> But hey, I wouldn't mind if they just treated "Michael Norrish" as the
> title that the first speaker used. :-)
B actually has prec
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Charles Schaefer wrote:
2009/1/12, Kerim Aydin :
It would be interesting to see what an independent group (note: B's not,
but may be enough so) with the Agoran ruleset but no Agoran judicial
precedents. -goethe.
They would find Michael Norrish and ask
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Charles Schaefer wrote:
> 2009/1/12, Kerim Aydin :
>> It would be interesting to see what an independent group (note: B's not,
>> but may be enough so) with the Agoran ruleset but no Agoran judicial
>> precedents. -goethe.
>
>
> They would find Michael Norrish and ask him to
2009/1/12, Kerim Aydin :
>
> It would be interesting to see what an independent group (note: B's not,
> but may be enough so) with the Agoran ruleset but no Agoran judicial
> precedents. -goethe.
They would find Michael Norrish and ask him to join their game so they could
have a speaker.
Then a
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> Somebody did just that, in B. I proposed replacing it with Agora's
> ruleset (but not gamestate). Those should be signs of how messed up B is
> at the moment...
It would be interesting to see what an independent group (note: B's not,
but may be enough so)
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 20:20 -0500, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Charles Schaefer wrote:
> >>> (btw, w1n5t0n, I'm just teasing a bit... it's something that's
> >>> abundantly
> >>> *not* clear in the SLR).
> >>>
> >>> -G.
>
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Charles Schaefer wrote:
>>> You know, in B Nomic, we repeal rules when we're done with them.
>>
>> Y'all are welcome to try.
>
> I propose repealing B Nomic.
But we're not done wit
On Jan 8, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Charles Schaefer wrote:
(btw, w1n5t0n, I'm just teasing a bit... it's something that's
abundantly
*not* clear in the SLR).
-G.
You know, in B Nomic, we repeal rules when we're done with them.
--
w1n5t0n aka
Charles Schaefer
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Charles Schaefer wrote:
>> (btw, w1n5t0n, I'm just teasing a bit... it's something that's abundantly
>> *not* clear in the SLR).
>>
>> -G.
> You know, in B Nomic, we repeal rules when we're done with them.
> --
> w1n5t0n aka
> Charles Schaefer
Y'all are welcome to try.
On 8 Jan 2009, at 21:27, Charles Schaefer wrote:
You know, in B Nomic, we repeal rules when we're done with them.
Agora is rather heavily steeped in tradition.
On 8 Jan 2009, at 21:27, Charles Schaefer wrote:
Goethe's CFJ
Mine.
2009/1/6, Kerim Aydin :
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > There is, it's in the FLR. The problem is someone keeps telling new
> > players to read the SLR instead, which by definition doesn't contain
> > FAQs. The FLR's much more useful to get an overview of what the rules
> > mean...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> There is, it's in the FLR. The problem is someone keeps telling new
> players to read the SLR instead, which by definition doesn't contain
> FAQs. The FLR's much more useful to get an overview of what the rules
> mean...
Maybe it should be part of the welco
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 20:13 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Charles Schaefer wrote:
> > Unless someone can point me to somewhere where the "first game" ends and,
> > presumably, the "second game" starts, then I argue Michael Norrish should
> > still be the Speaker. (this doesn't mea
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Charles Schaefer wrote:
> Unless someone can point me to somewhere where the "first game" ends and,
> presumably, the "second game" starts, then I argue Michael Norrish should
> still be the Speaker. (this doesn't mean he has to be a player, R104 (power
> 3) takes precedence ov
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Charles Schaefer
wrote:
> Inquiry CFJ: {The current Speaker is Michael Norrish.}
See CFJs 2155 and 1534.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> "and SHOULD be used when a rule includes a term otherwise." -- MMI
>
> Has this specific aspect of the First Speaker rule been thought about
> before?
>
> CFJ: { Michael Norrish is obligated to be Michael Norrish }
This falls under the "old ru
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> "and SHOULD be used when a rule includes a term otherwise." -- MMI
>
> Has this specific aspect of the First Speaker rule been thought about before?
>
> CFJ: { Michael Norrish is obligated to be Michael Norrish }
Using SHOULD in R104 would just mean that,
For consideration on pikhq's punishment: following exchange occurred between
pikhq and myself... -Goethe
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Agora Discussion
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Speak
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Pikhq wrote:
> Hmm. Can I still assign prerogatives? If so, I'll be doing that later
> this evening. (took me a couple of days to realise that I had been
> made Speaker; sorry about that)
I just asked you guys that. Anyway, for those not keeping up:
Eligible MwoPs:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> BobTHJ, we thank you for your fine work during your ~20-hour tenure.
>
It has been my pleasure to serve Agora :)
BobTHJ
Hmm. Can I still assign prerogatives? If so, I'll be doing that later
this evening. (took me a couple of days to realise that I had been
made Speaker; sorry about that)
On 8/4/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:24:10 -0700
> Proposal 5593 made BobTHJ the Speake
34 matches
Mail list logo
