On Mon, 2017-11-27 at 22:56 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 17:52 Kerim Aydin,
> wrote:
> > Ah, gotcha. I was racking by brain for any situation in the last N years
> > where 1/week for non-players would have been a hardship for em, and I
> > couldn't think of one - so doubling
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote:
The contract doesn't give any limitations on their ownership.
The default is to disallow non-player persons (except contract parties)
unless the contract explicitly says otherwise.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On 2017-11-28 14:37, VJ Rada wrote:
Can persons own
The contract doesn't give any limitations on their ownership.
On 2017-11-28 14:37, VJ Rada wrote:
Can persons own bills?
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
I change my vote to AGAINST on proposal 7988.
I pay Ørjan 5 Bills for spotting a significant error.
-o
On Nov 26,
Can persons own bills?
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I change my vote to AGAINST on proposal 7988.
>
> I pay Ørjan 5 Bills for spotting a significant error.
>
> -o
>
>> On Nov 26, 2017, at 9:27 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> wrote:
>>
>> As do I.
>>
>> Pub
We're talking about non-players here. There's no harm in saying "if you
really can't wait a week for your next two, register, because if you're
doing that many you're playing" IMO. In my mind, non-player CFJs aren't
for asking general inquiry questions, the only reason it's there at all
is beca
Eh just keep it as it is imo. Until and unless a non-player abuses
their status by calling 5 CFJs a week, there's no reason to stop it.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I've frequently called more. Two is in my opinion not enough.
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 17:52 Kerim Aydin,
I've frequently called more. Two is in my opinion not enough.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 17:52 Kerim Aydin, wrote:
>
>
> Ah, gotcha. I was racking by brain for any situation in the last N years
> where 1/week for non-players would have been a hardship for em, and I
> couldn't think of one - so doubl
Ah, gotcha. I was racking by brain for any situation in the last N years
where 1/week for non-players would have been a hardship for em, and I
couldn't think of one - so doubling that for absolute safety seemed ok.
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>
> Oh, I misunderst
Oh, I misunderstood what you meant the compromise was.
On 11/27/2017 01:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> "Compromise - an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by
> each side making concessions."
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> No, currently they
*gasps for air, tosses out hand*
I am still alive!
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 10:34 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> >the following ist item to the end:
> hmmm.
>
> I vote as follows
>
> 7982* V.J. Rada 1.7 Referee Reform Fix V.J. Rada 1 sh.
> FOR
> 7983* Telnaior, [1] 1.0 SBOTGT [
"Compromise - an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by
each side making concessions."
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> No, currently they get 5.
>
> On 11/26/2017 10:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > This time's economy is indeed the first time
No, currently they get 5.
On 11/26/2017 10:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> This time's economy is indeed the first time we've ever charged for CFJs
> in history, I'm going with the spirit of the experiment but just as happy to
> take it out again (preferably bringing in Blots as a replacement).
>
>
Except for technical reasons to improve flow, things are better if
non-players can CFJ.
On 11/26/2017 09:56 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Honestly, I’m not sure there’s any reason we should cater to non-players. If
> you want to play the game, be a player.
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Nov 26, 2017, at 6:48 P
This time's economy is indeed the first time we've ever charged for CFJs
in history, I'm going with the spirit of the experiment but just as happy to
take it out again (preferably bringing in Blots as a replacement).
Meantime, is 2 per week (free) for a non-player about a good compromise?
On M
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 21:56 Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Honestly, I’m not sure there’s any reason we should cater to non-players.
> If you want to play the game, be a player.
>
> Gaelan
>
I'm inclined to agree with this in general, but CFJs are a notable
exception, because otherwise deregistration s
Honestly, I’m not sure there’s any reason we should cater to non-players. If
you want to play the game, be a player.
Gaelan
> On Nov 26, 2017, at 6:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
>>> b) Without 2 O
making all non-player cfjs dependent actions is not optimal.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
>> > b) Without 2 Objections. Players SHOULD object unless paying
>> > with shinie
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > b) Without 2 Objections. Players SHOULD object unless paying
> > with shinies is a significant barrier to the Caller's
> > ability to seek a resolution to the controversy.
>
> I might not be cal
> On Nov 26, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> quorum is 8.0, the voting method i
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
//
ID: 7982
Title: Referee Reform Fix
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: V.J. Rada
Co-authors:
At the end of rule 2478 "Viglilante Justice", add a new
paragraph with the text "The Referee CAN
Everyone should vote against proposal 7983. It solves a typo, but it
increases the reward levels and does not give rewards for only casting
one vote.
On 11/26/2017 04:09 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, an
>the following ist item to the end:
hmmm.
I vote as follows
7982* V.J. Rada 1.7 Referee Reform Fix V.J. Rada 1 sh.
FOR
7983* Telnaior, [1] 1.0 SBOTGT [2] Telnaior1 AP
FOR
7984* Aris, [3] 2.6 Contract Flexibility Act Aris1 AP
FOR
79
22 matches
Mail list logo
