>>> 2. I need to draft a proposal that, somehow, ratifies the results of all
>>> shiny-related and stamp-related actions since July 30th, when nichdel
>>> attempted to create the first stamp. This proposal also needs a catch-all
>>> clause to cause it to ratify shiny actions taken after this pro
>> With that in mind, here are the things I believe need to happen:
>>
>> 1. The proposals fixing the stamps, welcome package, and floating value
>> rules need to pass. If there are any lingering bugs you’re aware of that
>> would perpetuate our shiny problems, please share them so that we can g
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:17 AM, Aris Merchant
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>
>>> Having slept on this a bit, and understanding the ratification process a
>>> bit better, I think this proposal wil
> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:17 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> Having slept on this a bit, and understanding the ratification process a bit
>> better, I think this proposal will comprise two parts:
>>
>> 1. A condition that matches only
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> An update on this project:
>
>> Some basic principles:
>>
>> 1. The actions undertaken so far were undertaken in broadly good faith with
>> respect to the transactional nature of the current economic rules, and
>> performed with the mistake
An update on this project:
> Some basic principles:
>
> 1. The actions undertaken so far were undertaken in broadly good faith with
> respect to the transactional nature of the current economic rules, and
> performed with the mistaken understanding that several key rules made actions
> POSSIBL
Yeah, mine failed both under the believed paradigm and the real paradigm
because I did silly typos. (mixed up shiny with floating value or something
iirc).
Gaelan did wire me some monies though, as compensation. I'm pretty sure his
attempted worked (under the believed paradigm) because it uses may
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
1a. Whatever fix we undertake should _not_ somehow resurrect actions we
had all understood, within the context of that mistaken reading of the
rules, to be ineffective or impossible at the time they were performed.
There are a few shiny transactions th
I suggest bumping this tomorrow for visibilty during the evening because
it's super late in Europe rn and pretty late in the states.
A way to dodge those side-effects could be to make it so formally no
actions actually happened during the controversial timeframe and we just
lock in the gamestate t
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 11:10 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> Having caught up - y’all are exhaustingly fast, you know that? - I think it’s
> time to start drafting the fixes in earnest.
>
> Some basic principles:
>
> 1. The actions undertaken so far were undertaken in broadly good faith with
> re
Having caught up - y’all are exhaustingly fast, you know that? - I think it’s
time to start drafting the fixes in earnest.
Some basic principles:
1. The actions undertaken so far were undertaken in broadly good faith with
respect to the transactional nature of the current economic rules, and
p
11 matches
Mail list logo
