On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 12:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I love Agoras Pledges. I won a a dynasty at BN and now running it with a
> > "Pledge" theme (called "Promises". Pledges is one of my favorite Agora
> > mechanics and BN is giving them a great tw
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I love Agoras Pledges. I won a a dynasty at BN and now running it with a
> "Pledge" theme (called "Promises". Pledges is one of my favorite Agora
> mechanics and BN is giving them a great twist rn). So I must admit credit
> to Agora for that.
>
> Also
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> > I’m on the fence on this. Pledges and promises are mechanically interesting
> > and a subtle part of Agora’s texture. Quashing someone’s promises for a
> > full month seems extreme.
>
> I love Agoras Pledges. I won a a dynasty at BN and now runn
> I’m on the fence on this. Pledges and promises are mechanically interesting
> and a subtle part of Agora’s texture. Quashing someone’s promises for a full
> month seems extreme.
I love Agoras Pledges. I won a a dynasty at BN and now running it with a
"Pledge" theme (called "Promises". Pledge
On Jul 14, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Nic Evans wrote:
> On 07/14/17 03:24, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> This is startlingly close to the notion of an equitable remedy, in the
>> judicial sense. You may well be reconstructing contract law, but from the
>> courts backwards rather than from the obligations
No, I am specifically referring to the without 3 objection.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 10:43 AM, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
>> What about a system i
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> What about a system in which punishment packages were assigned without 3
> objection or with Agoran Consent? The problem I see arising is that a player
> breaks the rules harming a second player, but then the game votes do
What about a system in which punishment packages were assigned without 3
objection or with Agoran Consent? The problem I see arising is that a player
breaks the rules harming a second player, but then the game votes does not
consent to punishing player one because they like em better than the se
On 07/14/17 05:45, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I agree with all of o’s opinions. I would also like to add that it could be a
> good idea to add some form of Summary Judgement to save time for clear-cut
> things. Also, I don’t like requiring Agoran Consent for the punishment to
> o
On 07/14/17 03:24, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
>
>> As for crimes themselves, what follows is the proto text:
>>
>> {
>>
>> Crimes are divided into Classes, and Levels. Each Class specifies
>> general qualifications and appropriate punishments. Low Level
>>
I agree with all of o’s opinions. I would also like to add that it could be a
good idea to add some form of Summary Judgement to save time for clear-cut
things. Also, I don’t like requiring Agoran Consent for the punishment to
occur. What about implement punishment and require Agoran Consent to
On Jul 13, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
> As for crimes themselves, what follows is the proto text:
>
> {
>
> Crimes are divided into Classes, and Levels. Each Class specifies
> general qualifications and appropriate punishments. Low Level
> crimes are variants that occur through neglige
On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 18:00 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
> A compromise that I considered (and rejected just because the other is
> simpler): Have three pools: Nonjudges, Available Judges, Unavailable
> Judges. You can choose anyone from the Available Judges pool, which also
> makes the Unavailable. Whe
On 07/13/17 17:44, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 15:23 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
>>> (I already have a good deal of text written for these, but wanted
>>> feedback on the abstracts before getting too committed.)
>>>
>>> Judicial Expansion
>>>
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 15:23 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
> > (I already have a good deal of text written for these, but wanted
> > feedback on the abstracts before getting too committed.)
> >
> > Judicial Expansion
> > --
> >
> > Players opt-i
On 07/13/17 17:16, Alex Smith wrote:
> I currently try to pick appropriate judges for CFJs, while keeping
> things balanced. I'm not necessarily opposed to this change, but it'd
> likely lead to a more even distribution of cases to judges, which might
> or might not be seen as a good thing.
I have
On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 15:23 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
> (I already have a good deal of text written for these, but wanted
> feedback on the abstracts before getting too committed.)
>
> Judicial Expansion
> --
>
> Players opt-in to the judge list. When a judge is needed, assign to th
(I already have a good deal of text written for these, but wanted
feedback on the abstracts before getting too committed.)
Judicial Expansion
--
Players opt-in to the judge list. When a judge is needed, assign to the
first on the list that isn't ineligible, then move them to the e
18 matches
Mail list logo
