wunst wrote:
Am 13.05.24 um 01:00 schrieb ais523 via agora-discussion:
On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 15:32 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-business
wrote:
Proposal: No apathetic apathy
Amend Rule 2465 (Victory by Apathy) by appending this text:
A player SHALL NOT announce intent to Declare Ap
I think the goal is to make it possible to shoot yourself in the foot
with apathy.
Intended effect (probably?):
1. A intents apathy
2. nobody objects
3. A has forgotten about intent, does nothing -> infraction
But the current phrasing would also make unsuccessful attempts illegal
as it says n
On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 15:32 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-business
wrote:
> Proposal: No apathetic apathy
>
> Amend Rule 2465 (Victory by Apathy) by appending this text:
>
> A player SHALL NOT announce intent to Declare Apathy and then
> fail to Declare Apathy before that intent ce
On 7/7/22 19:04, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-07-07 at 18:56 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> On 7/5/22 13:59, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
>>> Repeal Rule 2618 (Promises).
>>>
>>> Repeal Rule 1742 (Contracts).
>>>
>>> Repeal Rule 2450 (Pledges).
>>>
On Thu, 2022-07-07 at 18:56 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 7/5/22 13:59, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> >
> > Repeal Rule 2618 (Promises).
> >
> > Repeal Rule 1742 (Contracts).
> >
> > Repeal Rule 2450 (Pledges).
> >
> They all serve different purposes and are usef
On 7/5/22 13:59, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> I don't think we do. Let's discuss some options.
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {
> Title: Option A
> Adoption index: 2.2
> Author: secretsnail
> Co-authors:
>
> Repeal Rule 2618 (Promises).
>
> }
>
> I submit the following propos
On 3/14/2021 4:12 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> Title: You Can Only Stack Turtles So High
> Adoption index: 2.2
I was concerned about this fix for a couple of reasons, but I was hoping
the cfj would be resolved before discussing it further.
-G.
> eir's own office's Administrative Regulations. Administrative Regulations
Still not quite there : ) eir's
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 12:30:51 AM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I can rephrase it if you prefer? I'm trying to change the social
> conventions around motions of new confidence, but I could phrase it
> differently if you'd prefer?
I think it's bad form to tell people how they s
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 10:27 PM Rebecca via agora-business
wrote:
>
> I create the following proposal
> Title: Thought Police
> AI: 1.0
> If the proposal "No Confidence is No Insult" has passed, amend rule 2463 by
> removing the last sentence.
> Create a power 1 rule entitled "Really?" with the t
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:55 AM nch via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Ok I think these are the newest and current versions of these proposals in the
> pool, minus Vote Manipulation. Apologies if I make comments that are redundant
> with discussion, the comments on these have gotten a bit sprawling.
On 6/4/2020 12:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:20 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On 6/3/2020 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> A player SHALL N
On 6/4/2020 12:13 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> On the other hand, is it even a good idea to discourage
> people from producing unpopular or inadvisable proposals? A proposal, is,
> at the end of the day, an option, and can always be voted down.
Exactly! So we're agreed that s
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:13 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 6/3/2020 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Ker
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 2:13:33 PM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> It is in fair part my fault for using proposals rather than protos for
> ideas. Ideally, a proposal should signify "this is ready for voting" and a
> proto should signify "this is an idea that is ready for discuss
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/3/2020 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business w
Ok I think these are the newest and current versions of these proposals in the
pool, minus Vote Manipulation. Apologies if I make comments that are redundant
with discussion, the comments on these have gotten a bit sprawling.
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 1:00:56 AM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-busin
> [
> As a side note, I've noticed recently there's a bit of divergence about
> how people treat the importance of Notices of Honour. I've mostly thought
> of NoHs as "expressing mild annoyance" rather than anything more serious
> (though sometimes I mis-judge the tone in the justification). But
On 6/4/2020 12:20 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
>> And besides, we already criminalize intent. We do that by making it illegal
>> to intentionally lie to mislead.
>
> That doesn't help much, because that one was also in large part my fault.
I like the reform direction R. Lee pr
On Thursday, 4 June 2020, 16:06:12 GMT+1, nch wrote:
> I've noticed this dichotomy too. I was originally planning to award a victory
> card to the person with highest honor every week but I got the impression some
> people would be against gamifying honor so I backed down on it.
Honour only reall
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:18:52 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> [
> As a side note, I've noticed recently there's a bit of divergence about
> how people treat the importance of Notices of Honour. I've mostly thought
> of NoHs as "expressing mild annoyance" rather than anything
On 6/4/2020 3:20 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:14 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:24 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-bus
On 6/3/2020 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
>>> A player SHALL NOT cast a ballot or induce another person to do so in a
>>> way primarily intended to a
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:48 AM Rebecca via agora-business
wrote:
>
> I create this proposal
>
> Title: This is not unlike defamation law
> AI 1
> Chamber: Justice
> Text: Amend rule 2471 "No Faking" so that it states
> A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that (1) is a statement of pure
> an
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:13 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:24 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM,
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:01 AM Aris Merchant via agora-business
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 9:19 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > Title: Properly Prioritized Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege
> > Title: Referenda
> I retract these proposals.
>
> I submit the following proposals.
>
> -Aris
>
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:14 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:24 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM,
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:24 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> > > A player SHALL NOT cast a ballot or i
On 6/3/2020 10:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>>> proposal when resolving it. Players SHOULD NOT attempt to game p
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:36 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:04 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote:
> > >>
> >
> > > proposal when re
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:04 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
>
> On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>
>
> > proposal when resolving it. Players SHOULD NOT attempt to game popularity.
> >
>
> Can we
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:04 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>
>
> > proposal when resolving it. Players SHOULD NOT attempt to
On 6/3/2020 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
> proposal when resolving it. Players SHOULD NOT attempt to game popularity.
>
Can we be a bit less moralistic about trying to game, well, a game?
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:27 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:02 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business
> wrote:
> >
> > I submit the following proposals.
> >
> > -Aris
> > ---
> > Title: Order-Independent Resolutions
> > Adoption index: 1.0
>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:24 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
>
> On 6/3/2020 1:02 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> > The player who proposed the proposal with the greatest F/A, as
> > defined in rule 955,
>
> Can I just comment that I think our unofficial style guide s
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:02 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business
wrote:
>
> I submit the following proposals.
>
> -Aris
> ---
> Title: Order-Independent Resolutions
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
> Amend the rule entitled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege"
> by changing it
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:24 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/3/2020 1:02 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> > The player who proposed the proposal with the greatest F/A, as
> > defined in rule 955,
>
> Can I just comment that I t
On 6/3/2020 1:02 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> The player who proposed the proposal with the greatest F/A, as
> defined in rule 955,
Can I just comment that I think our unofficial style guide should avoid
rules referring to other rules by number? (except maybe for one-off
t
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 22:18, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 11:50 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> wrote:
> >
> > Proposal: Temporary Suspension of Rules (AI=3)
> > {{{
> > =Administrative Law Reform. II. Temporary Suspension of Rules=
> >
> > If no proposa
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 11:50 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-business
wrote:
>
> Proposal: Temporary Suspension of Rules (AI=3)
> {{{
> =Administrative Law Reform. II. Temporary Suspension of Rules=
>
> If no proposal entitled "Statutory Instrumentation" has taken effect
> in the previous month, this pr
Alexis wrote:
In this proposal, "I->S" is to amend a rule within the scope specified
by replacing each instance of "an Instrument" with "a statute", and
each other instance of "Instrument" with "statute". This is not a
case-sensitive match, however, if the text being replaced has a
leading capit
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 23:27, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020, 14:50 Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > [This first proposal is a reform to the core rules defining what rules
> > are, with an aim to better supporting sub
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020, 14:50 Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> [This first proposal is a reform to the core rules defining what rules
> are, with an aim to better supporting subordinate legal documents. The
> intent is to enact very little change to the game a
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 03:50, Aris Merchant via agora-business
wrote:
> ---
> Title: Promotorial Assignment
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
> Chamber: Legislation
>
> Amend the rule entitled "Proposal Chambers" by adding the text
> "If a proposal in the Proposal Pool has its c
Several comments:
For the sake of consistency with the exiting ruleset, crimes should be
in the opposite order. So "Auction announcers SHALL NOT fail to
correctly ...; doing so constitutes the Class-9 Crime of Auction
Obfuscation".
I would appreciate it if you added "willfully". You can't acciden
I've been overly paranoid sometimes and used stuff like
"I bid X coins and here's some tasty salt: F71FEC2C0685313F98D883EFFFC36F"
On Tue, 3 Jul 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> It's weird, I can't imagine how I would pronounce "SHA". I suspect the cause
> is just that I've only ever seen it w
It's weird, I can't imagine how I would pronounce "SHA". I suspect the cause is
just that I've only ever seen it written down and never actually spoken about
it, so I've never _needed_ to pronounce it, but it's actually quite disturbing
not being able to sound it in my head like with other words
Obviously, it is ess-aych-ay-five-twelve.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018, 08:11 ATMunn wrote:
>
> On 7/1/2018 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
> >> Also
> >> add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no
> >> Announcer may ever bid on an Aucti
On Tue, 3 Jul 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> On 7/1/2018 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
> > > Also
> > > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no
> > > Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing".
> >
> > This is a massive disadva
There are plenty of hashers online. You can just google "sha hash
online" or something like that and there will be a bunch to choose from.
Just put in the original text and they should spit out the hash at you,
which you can then copy and paste.
On 7/1/2018 8:15 PM, Rebecca wrote:
I guess the
I'd stick to one defined thing such as the SHA hash. I get that just
saying "reasonably verifiable method" allows people to be creative, but
really what we need is not creativity, it's verifiability. (is that a
word?) People can push the limits of "reasonably verifiable", which
could become a h
On 7/1/2018 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
Also
add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no
Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing".
This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to
completely stay out o
I guess instead of SHA hash we could make it "reasonably verifiable
method" which could include that or eg, posting a private youtube
video of yourself bidding etc.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> Burden of proof is with the bidder to prove it is wrong but criminal
> penalty is
Burden of proof is with the bidder to prove it is wrong but criminal
penalty is higher: class 9 crime v general "no faking".
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Hmm, it's a problem. If you're worried that emails can't be proven,
> you have to be equally worried that a bidde
Hmm, it's a problem. If you're worried that emails can't be proven,
you have to be equally worried that a bidder may lie versus the
announcer lying. If we get to the point that a bidder says "I sent
you a bid" and the announcer says "no you didn't", where should the
burden of proof be? (As an
I guess the announcer can't privately email anyone before the auction
because they could clearly use such information. I would prefer a non
SHA system though for reasons of agoran technical agnosticism/i don't
know how to use technlogy.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> very good
very good call.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Oh, and on the flip side, better make it a crime for the announcer to
> reveal bids to anyone before the auction is over!
>
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
>> > Also
>> > add i
Oh, and on the flip side, better make it a crime for the announcer to
reveal bids to anyone before the auction is over!
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
> > Also
> > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no
> > Announcer may eve
yes because it's the one case where lying is perfectly doable and
intentional lying could almost never be distinguished by anyone. class
9 isn't even huge. it's one above intending to ratify without
objection incorrect information.
fair point on the first one. I would have simplicity reign and say
On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
> Also
> add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no
> Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing".
This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to
completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
I destroy 20 notes and trade them for shinies. I create and pend with
shinies the following two proposals.
ITYM "bills".
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Which proposal exactly did you retract, anyway? Both of them?
-Aris
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:13 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
> I retract the above.
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:01 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
>> I pend the following w/ AP (I have none left this week, having called
>> a CFJ on my playerhood)
>> T
i did retract.
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> On Sep 8, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Aris Merchant
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:01 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
>>> I pend the following w/ AP (I have none left this week, having called
>>> a CFJ on my playerhood)
>>> Title: N
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:01 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
>> I pend the following w/ AP (I have none left this week, having called
>> a CFJ on my playerhood)
>> Title: No messin' with Stamps
>> AI: 1
>> Amend rule 2498 "Economic Wins" by removing
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:01 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
> I pend the following w/ AP (I have none left this week, having called
> a CFJ on my playerhood)
> Title: No messin' with Stamps
> AI: 1
> Amend rule 2498 "Economic Wins" by removing the sentence
> "Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and
On 2016-02-04 21:06, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> current value plus N. N cannot be less than the credit balance of
> the transferer before the transfer occurs. A player can conduct a
Am I missing something, or should this be "N cannot be *more* than the
credit balance..."
--
Sprocklem
First, a note: these proposals need to be reissued to require Credits v2 to be
adopted instead. Also, is there anything preventing me from taking all of
someone's credits for missing a minor deadline?
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
>
> -
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
>>
>> I submit the following proposals:
>>
>> --
>> Proposal: Credits
>> Author: Henri
>> AI: 1
>>
>> A Credit Transfer
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> I submit the following proposals:
>
> --
> Proposal: Credits
> Author: Henri
> AI: 1
>
> A Credit Transfer of N credits occurs when a player switches eir
> Credit
On Mon, 12 May 2014, omd wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > The rules once said some Item could be "Decreased by N". I found a
> > scam way to have N come out negative (it wasn't lower bounded). So
> > of course I tried to "Decrease" the Item by a negative amount
On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:34 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: You deserve it (AI=1.5)
> {{{
> Award to Fool the Patent Title "Sociopath".
> }}}
If elected, I promise more uncertainty, chaos, destruction, slaughter,
blood Blood BLOOD ...
erm.
I mean, I accept this nomination. Thank you S
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The rules once said some Item could be "Decreased by N". I found a
> scam way to have N come out negative (it wasn't lower bounded). So
> of course I tried to "Decrease" the Item by a negative amount and
> get lots of said Item (I think a win
On Mon, 12 May 2014, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 7:20 PM, omd wrote:
> > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Sean Hunt
> > wrote:
> >> with "For this decision, the valid options are the players. Upon the
> >> resolution of this decision, its outcome, if a player, is installed
> >>
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 7:20 PM, omd wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
>> with "For this decision, the valid options are the players. Upon the
>> resolution of this decision, its outcome, if a player, is installed
>> into office, and the election ends."
>
> Violates R1
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> with "For this decision, the valid options are the players. Upon the
> resolution of this decision, its outcome, if a player, is installed
> into office, and the election ends."
Violates R1006.
> Proposal: Clairty (AI=1)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2420
On 20 Jul 2013 19:10, "omd" wrote:
> Proposal: Infraction cases (AI=2, PF=25)
FOR, but we should review the Classes of current crimes and upgrade a few
SHALLs/SHALL NOTs to Crimes. If no one does so next week I'll look into it.
Also, do we really need Classes of Crime? Could just have Infraction
On 20/07/2013 3:30 PM, omd wrote:
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Fool wrote:
Create a Power-2 Rule titled "Auctions":
Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it?
It was repealed.
Just looked, R2393 is in the SLR posted 12 hours ago.
Do we want people to be a
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Fool wrote:
>> Create a Power-2 Rule titled "Auctions":
> Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it?
It was repealed.
>> When in effect, unless
>> a fine for that case has already been satisfied, the ninny
>>
Create a Power-2 Rule titled "Auctions":
Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it?
When in effect, unless
a fine for that case has already been satisfied, the ninny
SHALL pay a cost of that amount of currency to satisfy the
fine
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> More flexibility this way. What if we want to make the tokens created
> before the auction with paused timers, so that you know what you're
> bidding on beforehand?
You do know what you're bidding on with this proposal. But I guess it
would sav
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:48 PM, omd wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
>> How about a timer to expiration?
>
> Could use a timer, but not much point, since there is no reason for an
> expiration timer to pause.
More flexibility this way. What if we want to make the to
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> How about a timer to expiration?
Could use a timer, but not much point, since there is no reason for an
expiration timer to pause.
> And I'm a fan of platonic destruction
> here.
You mean pragmatic? I could change it to pragmatic, but because
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM, omd wrote:
> Amend Rule 2389 (Ordinary Chamber) to read:
>
> Voting Tokens are a class of assets tracked by the Assessor.
> Each Voting Token has an ID number and an Expiration Date, upon
> which it is automatically destroyed.
How about a timer t
On Tuesday, April 9, 2013, Max Schutz wrote:
> well in the case of recycling i am not sure what a parent title is nor am
> i sure of how a title in end of itself can be a handicap
>
I suggest reading Rule 649, which defines Patent Titles.
—Machiavelli
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, Tanner Swett wrote:
> I submit a proposal, titled "Recycling":
>
> Enact a rule, titled "Recycling":
>
> Any person CAN, by announcement, Recycle a Patent Title e Bears,
> unless the Patent Title is a Handicap. When this happens, e
> CAN, by announcement,
well in the case of recycling i am not sure what a parent title is nor am i
sure of how a title in end of itself can be a handicap
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Max Schutz wrote:
> > i request clarification on ministry listen to the speak
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Max Schutz wrote:
> i request clarification on ministry listen to the speaker and recycling
> please
The wording is quite clear, in my opinion, so I'm not sure how I could
offer clarification besides simply quoting the definitions of some of
the terms used. Unless
i request clarification on ministry listen to the speaker and recycling
please
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> I submit a proposal, titled "Recycling":
>
> Enact a rule, titled "Recycling":
>
> Any person CAN, by announcement, Recycle a Patent Title e Bears,
>
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Arkady English wrote:
> On 25 September 2012 17:27, omd wrote:
> >
> > Proposal: Two-way Plutocracy (AI=2)
> >
> > Amend Rule 2375 (Plutocratic Chamber) by replacing:
> >
> > Any entity may spend a Ruble to increase an entity's voting
> > limit on a Plutocratic D
On 25 September 2012 17:27, omd wrote:
>
> Proposal: Two-way Plutocracy (AI=2)
>
> Amend Rule 2375 (Plutocratic Chamber) by replacing:
>
> Any entity may spend a Ruble to increase an entity's voting
> limit on a Plutocratic Decision by 1.
>
> with:
>
> Any entity may spend a rubl
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Benjamin Schultz
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
>>
>> Proposal: Richard Potato Boat (AI=1, Plutocratic)
>> {{{
>> Enact a new rule reading:
>> scshunt CAN, by announcement, cause this rule to perform a specified
>> Rule Change.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: Richard Potato Boat (AI=1, Plutocratic)
> {{{
> Enact a new rule reading:
> scshunt CAN, by announcement, cause this rule to perform a specified
> Rule Change.
> }}}
>
> -scshunt
>
Too obvious. You can do better -- 2 hours extr
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> These do the same thing.
They have different Chambers. I'm not making this an ordinary
proposal because it's my own fault that I didn't try to veto or
otherwise defeat the original proposal, so it's a bit lame to then
propose a repeal; but if t
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 4:58 PM, omd wrote:
> Proposal: unrevive lame pun 1 (Plutocratic)
> {
> Repeal Rule 2376 (Props).
> }
> Proposal: unrevive lame pun 2 (Aerocratic)
> {
> Repeal Rule 2376 (Props).
> }
>
These do the same thing.
On 08/13/2012 10:33 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> FKA441344 wrote:
>
>> I submit a proposal with title {No Zero Length Reports}, adoption
>> index 3, and text
>
> Create a new rule with title "No News Is Some News" and this text:
>
>If the rules define a report as including a list, then while t
FKA441344 wrote:
I submit a proposal with title {No Zero Length Reports}, adoption
index 3, and text
Create a new rule with title "No News Is Some News" and this text:
If the rules define a report as including a list, then while that
list is empty, that report includes the fact th
On 10 April 2012 17:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
> you know who you are
:'(
FKA441344 wrote:
Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose
value is either "none" (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 from
1.0 to 99.9.
AGAINST. This will result in some players (you know who you are)
setting AI that high just because they can. Let
On 28 June 2011 20:11, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:05 PM, omd wrote:
>> Proposal: General costs (AI=3)
> Amend Rule 1607 (The Promotor) by replacing "as a Spending Action"
> with "for a cost of 5 points".
Why get rid of changing costs as a dependent action? It needn't
necessarily app
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:47:02 -0700, Ed Murphy
wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
>>The Promotor CAN distribute an Urgent Proposal as soon as
>>possible, unless it ceases to be Urgent in the mean time.
Failure
>>to do so is the Class 1 Crime of Lack of Urgency.
>
> "The Promotor CA
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
