ion, they might call it out).
I think a solution is to include with this proposal going through the whole
ruleset and harmonizing "pay" versus "spend" language in all the rules.
I'm willing to take a pass at this but will probably be tomorrow.
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Aris M
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 11:30 ATMunn . wrote:
> I just figured out what the purpose of stamps is. I hadn't realized
> it before; I must have just not looked very closely at that section of the
> rules.
>
> I buy a stamp by transferring 1 shiny to
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I dislike this extra option, and in particular that it only
> requires a majority to apply. I'd really prefer splitting
> this out to separate proposals so that AI=3 applies to both of
> them separately, or at lesat requiring 3 times as many OPTION A
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 00:29 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> A lot of feedback here. Much of it is typo corrections, but not all of
> it.
>
> > Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]
> "Contract" is not currently rules-defined, so this attempts to destroy
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Set the power of all entities other than Rules, Regulations, and this
> Proposal to 0.
>
> [This is a general cleanup that catches repealed rules and other entities. I
> believe
> that this actuall depowers old proposals, but that's probably a good th
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 03:30 Aris Merchant
> wrote
> # 1 Cleanup & Miscellaneous
> # 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup
>
> Destroy each organization.
>
>
> We used to have a rule that made this sort of thing not necessary (Definition
> and
>
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> 7912* Alexis3.0 Election Campaigns Alexis 1 AP [2]
So, um ... anyone want to opine on the status of the PM or ADoP elections?
The thing you quoted says "with Shinies"...?
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> On 10/06/17 14:14, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > [Sorry, I initially missed the second "linked" CFJ in the below message.]
> >
> >
> >>> I also call
VJ Rada wrote:
> >> The election was validly initiated. It looks like for four hours or so
> >> that we're still in the Nomination Phase: and then if there is more
> >> than one candidate we'll go in an election, with the Assessor counting
> &g
he nomination period.
2. It's possible that the election Decision is ongoing, but resolving
it will fail to install the officeholder (e.g. because the vote
collector is the wrong vote collector).
3. I dunno.
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I will contradict you. If you asked the
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> The rules now also provide no way for the ADoP to resolve such an
> Agoran decision, but the election's initiation stated that the ADoP
> was the resolver. I guess the election would sort of dissolve in thin
> air if this interpretation was taken.
It would b
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Alternatively: the rules of Initiating Agoran Decision state "This
> notice is invalid if it lacks any of the following information, and
> the lack is correctly identified within one week after the notice is
> published:
>
> The matter to be decided (for exa
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 08:54 +1100, VJ Rada wrote:
> > And the notice of initiation lacked any set of the valid votes, which
> > I wasn't going to point out but now do. Therefore, the Agoran
> > Decisions were never initiated.
>
> Does pointing it out to a
Don't your arguments imply FALSE for CFJ 3571 (the CFJ statement is
"G: Overlord of Dunce is an Agency.")
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> I judge CFJ 3570 FALSE. I judge CFJ 3571 TRUE.
>
> First there's little doubt that "G is Overlord of Dunce" is not an
> agency, because the name is i
Gotcha, thanks.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> E's judging that the document I ratified ratified GOD into existence
> but did not change the past to establish BOO.
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > Don't your arg
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I now, to a-b, officially "identify" the lack of options noted in my
> initiation.
>
> The ELECTIONS were still initiated (one by G. and one by me) but the
> DECISIONS were not.
Anyway, if you're right, I think we're worse-off now then if you'd let the
De
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I was waiting because I noticed days later and I hoped nobody else did.
>
> Fun fact: Only one of the Decisions I've initiated was ever valid.
> Obviously ratified now but I can't seem to get all four conditions
> lmao. Only one person (Alexis) ever noticed,
I'll have a go in a bit.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I actually don't know how to properly phrase that under the new Election
> rules.
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > I object.
> >
> > This wou
, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'll have a go in a bit.
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > I actually don't know how to properly phrase that under the new Election
> > rules.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin
> > wrote:
> &
even simpler.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > Actually, maybe the easiest thing is to wait 4 hours for the original
> > voting period to end (unofficially), tally the votes, and then ratify
> > the ADoP repor
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I would possibly object to that, as I had a scam planned but didn't fire it
> as a result of the decisions being invalid; I wouldn't support ratifying if
> it would have made a difference.
If we can't agree to a ratification, then I'd attempt it by Prop
In an equity sense, I'd say the significant delay for someone who paid
to pend a proposal is worse than the inconvenience of having to reply
to two voting messages to vote.
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> If by "the report" you mean the one I just I did, I avoided that
> because I'm
uorum.
> Early in the week I was hoping Gaelan would revise eir proposal, as e
> said e wanted to. Then I was busy. Now I have time, but I'm going to
> do the entire report soon, so it made sense to consolidate.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Kerim Aydi
Proto ratification statement (this can also be in a proposal):
The following document is ratified:
{
On Mon Oct 15 03:18:27 UTC, [winner] won an election for Prime Minister.
On Mon Oct 15 03:18:27 UTC, [winner] won an election for ADoP.
}
The current (new) rule reads:
When a player wins
Actually, retroactively replacing an Officeholder is ugly. Better version:
The following document is ratified:
{
[winner] has just now won an election for Prime Minister.
[winner] has just now won an election for ADoP.
}
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Proto ratification statem
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> 7922* Alexis 3.0 Clarity Act Alexis 1 AP
>
H. Assessor, H. Promotor:
Proposal 7922 tinkers with the definition of ballots and votes. It would be
*really nice* if all other proposals in this batch were resolved first,
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 20:20 -0700, 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.
>
> not-technically-a-CoE: The ID numbers listed i
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>
> >> 7922* Alexis 3.0 Clarity Act Alexis 1 AP
> >>
> &g
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:
> About Silly proposals I am vexed:Of the rule's intention I am perplexed;
> Ought the proposal's mood be most merry,
> Or it's meaning and tone be contrary?
The Rule's a blank slate
With no preconceived notions
Whatever you like
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:
> The reason why they're called Medals of Honour is because in order to declare
> yourself eligible for one, you have to have not received any cards in the
> last
> month, and you can't have negative Karma.
Since karma is 0-sum, for there to be any positiv
Just a note: It looks like the Herald isn't required to track who has a Medal
of
Honour once it's awarded. So it's like trust tokens that people just have to
keep track - is that intentional? (As Herald I'd probably put this in my
monthly
report anyway).
Also there's a timing problem. "In
Oh, last thing: you should throw in this Proposal a repeal of the Victory
Elections
(Rule 2482). This is a much better replacement and we don't need both.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Just a note: It looks like the Herald isn't required to track who has a
> M
To me this sounds like lack of explicit consent to be a player, so by
CFJ 3455 the ratification failed.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 06:33 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
> > Yes, he had, but it seems I missed that when preparing a report,
> > p
Do you mean IMPOSSIBLE? Given that there's no SHALL or SHALL NOTs associated
with owning ribbons I can't see the situation where it would be ILLEGAL...?
(I think you mean "if a player's Ribbon Ownership has an impossible value")
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: Ribbon Prese
Telnaior - you should announce intent to win with 2 days notice, in
case proposal 7923 passes...
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:
> Speaking of...
>
> If Telnaior's shiny balance is 0 as of the sending of this message, I
> transfer 10 shinies to Telnaior.
>
> I included the conditional i
Why not just change it so a Welcome package Creates money rather than
transferring it? (and to balance it, the secretary can destroy money
if total is above some multiple of # of players).
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> By the way, with this registration we have 20 players and 1000
> sh
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote:
> I intend to win the game with two days' notice, in accordance with Rule 7923.
> (Does this really work before it's even a rule?)
Yes, but it's not Rule 7923 (that's the proposal), saying it was "Rule 7923"
instead of "as described in Proposal 7923" might m
> interpretation principles here would mean a value which is not valid, I think.
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 17:08 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Do you mean IMPOSSIBLE? Given that there's no SHALL or SHALL NOTs
> associated
> with owning ribbons I can&#
Taxing, increasing and decreasing the rewards is fundamentally pointless while
there's nothing to spend on.
So we really need a diversity of spending options. These should represent ways
that players can Specialize in the game, and you shouldn't be able to compete
in every specialty (promoting
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Maybe we could abolish Estates and like... create some kind of voting
> power market? Where everyone has say three voting power and can buy
> and sell the extra power at will? Or something like that might be fun.
oh, snap.
I don't think we should abolish E
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 19:48 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'm personally working on an Oligarchy proposal. For those who haven't
> been
> under an Oligarchy, this works as follows:
>
> 1. Players can be Oli
I fundamentally disagree. I personally enjoy just having "extra say" in my
FOR/AGAINST
votes on proposals based on their merits, and it creates a dynamic where you
seek
opinions on the folks on top of the chain when putting out ideas. (as long as
this rotates so everyone gets a chance for a l
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:
> This is a very interesting conversation. I'll just say my opinions on
> everyone's view, and throw in my two cents at the end.
>
> Regarding the original tax idea, I think that the idea of tax in general is
> something that is really lacking from Agora
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> No, you spent Notes to promote/demote yourself or others.
Oh that's right!
> Have you played Kremlin?
oooh, it's been a long time. That's an alternate idea (named "puppets"
that you bid to control their votes...)
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote:
> This is a really cool idea, I'm looking forward to seeing how it works. One
> issue I can see is that if you're going to have the oligarchs vote among each
> other, we'll need to amend the voting system to allow for Decisions where not
> everyone is eligible
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:
> This might be a good place to start, but it's certainly way too
> long in itself. I don't really like the (a) (b) (c) etc. way that
> this is written.
Yeah, I chose a maximally-specified starting point on purpose; feel free
to trim anything that isn't nee
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I intend to destroy the universe with notice.
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2150
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:28 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I submit the following Proposal, "Don't vote for this", AI-3, and
> > AP-pend it:
>
> The created rule wouldn't actually work (for interesting reasons wh
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Three reasons that would be a bad judgment, which I would likely moot:
>
> 1. I'm paying for the CFJ, which means the judge will get paid for it.
> It wouldn't be very nice to take money and then assign an effectively
> null judgment.
This is an inap
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> (Also I would like to remind G. of my other two outstanding CFJs, in a message
> with a perhaps confusing subject starting "BUS: DIS: CFJ".)
I've been trying out batch-assigning once a week and those were 5 days
ago - if the delays are being too annoy
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> 3575 should be listed as "recent" for me.
>
> Apart from that, thanks for this report as always.
I should have explained: when everyone has at least one case under "recent",
I drop everyone's oldest one (it's for making sure people have relatively
simila
ropes of what to consider when making a
> judgement and how to consider it, but I'm definitely interested in trying.
>
>
> On 2017-10-22 11:18, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > COURT GAZETTE [
levant rule. Hopefully
> Ctrl-F on the ruleset and CFJ archive should help there, at least! (Along with
> experience, of course)
>
>
> On 2017-10-22 11:40, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > Absolutely! You're on the list. I'll try to look out for ones that aren't
>
taking from inactives was my secondary thought on policy, if random
doesn't work out.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> This is a notice of honour. My policy is to remove karma from
> inactives in protest at their nonexistence (unless one of y'all really
> cheeses me off)
>
> -1 karma from
Check out the text of proposal 7904, here:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-October/011867.html
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote:
> Thankyou :D
> Though I haven't been able to figure out what the karma actually is or where
> it comes from? If someone
We've recently re-assessed whether subject lines have meaning,
I think a recent CFJ allowed it. The exact text of the rule is
that a Notice must
"Be clear that it is a Notice of Honour"
I believe the subject line and context are sufficiently clear
so that would be how I'd reflect it in my
Anyone remember which CFJ it was in (<6 months ago). I'm drawing a blank.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote:
> Is there any real reason for the subject line not to count, incidentally, or
> is it worth CFJing?
>
>
> On 2017-10-22 14:46, Telnaior wrote:
> > This is a notice of honour. (Appar
Just grepped the cases directory. The recent one was 3501. I remember
it led to discussion, but the action in question was registration which
is a special case (you're allowed to be more unclear in registration
than for most things).
The next one back is 3409. It proposes some tests for wheth
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada wrote:
> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
>
>
> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been keeping them up
> to date.
>
> https://faculty.washington.edu/keri
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> The difference might be that in 3409 the standard was the ordinary "by
> announcement" wheras here the rule involved itself specifies a
> heightened standard of clarity?
point taken.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Telnaior wrote:
> There's plenty of dissent, so may as well?
> I spend an action point to initiate a Call For Judgement on the statement
> "Telnaior attempted to publish a Notice of Honour that was invalid solely
> because she had already posted a valid Notice of Honour withi
You deputize by actually performing the action (e.g. actually publishing
an up-to-date Ruleset that's overdue). Multiple people might announce
their intent to do so ahead of time, but that doesn't make the office
change (or reserve it for them).
So you'd do it by saying "I deputize for the Rule
I should say I'm a bit nervous with someone who hasn't been an Officer
before starting with rulekeepor. It's an unholy blend of a lot of work,
in big bursts, with timeliness being a big issue, and it requires some
pretty finicky understanding of the rules (e.g. it's the primary person
responsi
The problem is, by R208 it isn't actually a proposal resolution if
it doesn't "provides a tally of the voters' valid ballots."
Note that it's a bit weird - the tally of valid ballots isn't actually
what self-ratifies - that's in R2034. So the tally is more platonic,
if it was incorrect, the res
Yes, regardless of who deputizes in the short-term I think this one definitely
deserves an election.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> I agree. I'm considering putting myself up for election on it as a result.
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 15:20 Kerim Aydin, wrote
The regkeepor should be monthly not weekly - if you want a sinecure
it's that - a completely empty weekly report for the last two months.
We just repealed organizations, right? So that's the Secretary gone.
I thought for a while that the Herald and Tailor should be merged, but
now with Karma
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: No List Prefixes (AI=1)
> {{{
> The Distributor is hereby requested to disable the DIS, BUS, and OFF
> prefixes automatically added to mail sent by the agoranomic.org mailing
> lists.
> }}}
Subject lines wander a long way from their purpose -
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > The regkeepor should be monthly not weekly - if you want a sinecure
> > it's that - a completely empty weekly report for the last two months.
>
> T
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> Contracts passed, and was enacted unless my CFJ turns out true (G., any
> likelihood
> of expediting that one and possibly linking it with my previous one about the
> Promotor's report?)
Might not be today, but should get it out by tomorrow.
But I
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> We should probably just repeal Agronomy? It's a really complicated
> modification of five things that creates so many empty reports that
> the reportor forgot to publish them until last week. And the person
> whose idea it was left immediately after coming up
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> By the by, I forgot o. is also the agronomist. I intend to deputize
> for the position to publish its weekly report.
I have to say, o has been a conscientious and hard-working Officer that
hasn't missed deadlines generally - it seems churlish to grab offices
fter I'm allowed, which I doubt.
>
> I don't deny o's good officerlyness, I have complimented em on it many
> times. Having said that, e is also the richest Agoran, a holder of 5
> offices currently. It seems not unethical to take the easiest few of
> eir offices.
>
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Hey fun fact: there's still a use of Organisations in the rule
> post-this. The reason being, my "Estate Auction Fix" is listed after
> "Contracts" and amends the rule "Estate Auctions" to mention Orgs.
Um, actually, Contracts first overwrote the text that
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I believe the report is overdue though, traditionally, we are lax on officers
> who take over midweek.
In an old system, we had a strong precedent or rule (can't remember) that
you can't ding an officer for missing something in eir first objection perio
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
> > I deputise for he Rulekeepor to publish the below SLR:
> >
> > THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>
> CoE: There are brackets in R2520, in clear contravention of the
> beginning of t
ais523 (or someone else): you are the only person to do a Masters
thesis - do you have a copy handy? (I vaguely remember it might have
been part of a CFJ, but that might have been your dissertation).
Alexis's recent thesis is right on B.N. level IMO, but e's already
got that, I'm trying to dec
nttpf
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I announce my candidacy.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
Comments:
1. A bunch of these still have wrapping problems. If it doesn't show
up in your client, the below-quoted shows how it shows up for me (that's
how it shows up for me even without quotes, and how i
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> As of the original publication time of the initial attempt to assess the
> recent batch of proposals, the decision had not been resolved.
Just an observation (I should have put in my judgement maybe).
Most self-ratifying quantities (e
Meta-proposal:
If a method of winning is repealed (or indirectly repealed as here), the
same proposal should add a new method of winning. Otherwise don't vote
for it.
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Trust tokens and apathy are dumb. Having said that, wouldn't it be fun
> if everyone tr
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Does anyone want to come forward as actually significantly tracking
> their trust tokens? Because then I will admit that they have worth as
> a wincon. But it seems to me they're just even less achievable Stamps
> that nobody tracks.
Yes.
But I'll admit to
I am really enjoying reading this conversation using Pine.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:
>
> Maybe this is right? (probably not though)
>
>
> On 10/23/2017 9:24 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> This is the same as before. You want to find plain text mode, not mess
> with the formatting.
>
I plan to run for the office of Surveyor with a proposed set of land
reforms. The incumbant's tenure has been marked with a low, supply-
side policy that has marginalized land and made it a part of the
ongoing economic malaise - eir campaign proposal is an inadequate
response to our ongoing pr
Er, which election?
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I initiate and stand for the election. My campaign proposal is as follows.
>
> Title: Agronomist-Surveyor Combination
> Author: VJ Rada
> Text: Repeal rule 2504 "The Agronomist". Amend rule 2488 "The
> Surveyor" by adding the text at the
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2017, at 12:30 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> > I cause Agora to make the following payments, which I believe can be
> > uniquely decomposed into the individual payments required by “Passive
> > Income”:
> >
> > * 8 sh. to ProofTechnique
>
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> Actually, when this came up, e made a statement that could have been
> consent and I believe G. may have mentioned that he thought it could count.
No - not after the fact.
The situation that CFJ 3456 allows this to work is is if a pe
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I'm onboard with this, but I have a few things I'd like to address.
Very useful comments, thanks! I'll incorporate/respond to them when I've got
a fuller draft.
Hi all, I wanted to share some observations on what makes Agoran
economies function, and where we're not quite there yet. These are just
observations from watching systems go by.
- To get trading, you need SPECIALIZATION and DIVERSE GOODS. For
trading to work, you need the Cost of Speci
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > That's fair enough, I was mainly thinking of ways like utilising
> > contracts and offering wincon progress or selling your vote, and in
> > general I feel like people don't really use what's there as much as
> > we possibly could?
>
> I completely con
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:
> Given that I think VJ Rada is the only person who has purchased a vote in
> the whole existence of me selling votes, I am inclined to agree.
The issue is that - if the proposal is an actual idea (not a scam or win
attempt), people (a) want it to win on its
> merely existing. I feel that even if I effectively don't
> earn anything from the shop, it does serve a purpose which I find valuable.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 25 October 2017 at 14:25, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:
>
Indeed - whenever I see someone buy a vote, it's a signal to me to read
that proposal extra, extra carefully to look for ulterior motives for it
passing.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> On 10/25/17 11:52, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > People don't spend to buy others'
to take player-like actions. Additionally, he stated that he had
> observed his inclusion in the Registrar's report and had knowingly not
> CoEed.
>
>
> On 10/25/2017 10:47 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
&g
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> CB loses an honour for, by objecting to deregistrations, forcing other
> players to
> effectively become negative-karma-sinks.
I'm vastly amused by this emerging. Back in our ancient (2002-2005?) Karma
system,
"inactive" players were quickly targe
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> > There's nothing wrong with an "abstract stock market" game. But we
> > shouldn't
> > mistake it for a trading system.
>
> In a way, the fact that each person's stamps are different makes
> everyone a fixed specialist. This was by design. Trading is
In fact, I'd be more inclined to say this *new* action (now being
unambiguous intent to play) is in fact the Registration message.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> How long after the fact are you comfortable with accepting evidence of
> consent? (obviously this works for
How long after the fact are you comfortable with accepting evidence of
consent? (obviously this works for any future ratification).
What if OscarMeyr came back and said - you know back in May and that
other CFJ - well actually I consent.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wr
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> > To be clear, by "let it go" I mean:
> >
> > - Get rid of stamps.
> > - Fix all prices to set levels.
> > - Stop worrying about total shiny level, create however many needed.
> > - Shinies become the "basic income augmented by officer salaries".
> > -
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> In fact, I think this is my vision of a major overhaul:
I think converging to exactly the same page here :)
"Collection of stamps" mechanics can work nicely as a supplement,
we've done those sorts of systems before (Cards and Notes).
We could borrow some
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> I might not vote for this, as I'm working on a draft for a much more
> in-depth Auctions proposal. Hopefully I'll post that draft soon,
> however I haven't had much time to work on it recently.
Just as a warning, I need to know how auctions work for a proposa
1 - 100 of 8209 matches
Mail list logo
