!
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> I have no idea what's going on here. (as usual with threads like this)
>
> On 11/8/2017 7:45 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm saying that ratifying the "resolution" only would ratify "the option
>
to define
"correct"...
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
>
> Ah, okay. It makes sense what's going on here now.
>
> Although what doesn't entirely make sense, and it seems it doesn't to
> anybody, is what the correct solution should be...
>
> On 11
Unless nichdel posts in the next couple days and wants to do it emself, I'll
propose eir fixed-currency thing along with fixed-up land to try to solidify
the economic whole, by the weekend. Aiming for simplification but with some
multi-sector things to trade for.
And the "phase" depends on ho
Well, I did about the same as Herald when I re-posted the victory election
thing. Traditionally, the proof of a scammer's good intent is an actual
proposal to fix the problem. I think an apology is appropriate, where the
apology included a fix. I'm not sure if the fix is stopping all these dum
That's what I was suggesting that o take the opportunity to do...
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> If more people would give me suggestions on what to change in my auctions
> proposal, then I could get it out a lot sooner. :P
>
> On 11/9/2017 9:39 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
&
H. Rulekeepor, do you prefer one whitespace or two whitespaces following
a full stop?
On Sat, 11 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I am not sure I agree with the first paragraph, but I definitely agree with
> the second paragraph. Ratifying that the decision was resolved as
> indicated, as provided for by rule 2154, ratifies that the decision was
> resolved by the announcement with t
Really we should put a word minimum on the newspaper; there were more
activities going on this week and this seems very low-effort to me.
I mean, if you can't even report your own Bard award to be "significant
or interesting", that's just very limited.
Do others have feelings on appropriate mi
ing is messed up.
>
> On 11/12/2017 12:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > Really we should put a word minimum on the newspaper; there were more
> > activities going on this week and this seems very low-effort to me.
> >
> > I mean, if you can't even
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Changes from v3:
To add: "cancel all auctions in progress with no winner". Better to
stop and re-start impending (I think??) Zombie auctions, on the new
rules then to end up with a weird clash.
To add: "If zombie auction rule exists then... [amendme
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I do think we need to tighten up what it means to pay, and to
> spend, Shinies. How’s this for a sketch:
>
> * Where the rules define an amount of an asset to be paid to a
> recipient, any attempt to pay an amount other than the full
> amount due is
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> 7950x G. 2.0 B! G. OP [2]
> 7951* G. 1.0 Zombie Auctions G. OP [2]
> 7952* G. 2.0 It LIVES G. 1 AP
Ooh, I
Will do and appreciated. (Night gets pretty much the same load as Day
except when there's urgent cases, so it's not as uneven as it looks).
And yeah - I've noted that your tendency to call a lot means there
are fewer that I can assign you to! About half your light load to
date is because week
Of course! Also done.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote:
> I also wouldn't mind going onto the Day Court if you consider me suitable.
>
>
> On 2017-11-13 10:03, VJ Rada wrote:
> > Given that there are now 2 day-court people and 5 weekenders, a
> > seemingly bad ratio, whack me on the day co
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> By the way, Aris, have you appointed a Silly Person for next week?
> Just fair notice that that's an obligation.
Oh yes please do Aris. Rule unfortunately requires a week without a
silly person if previous person doesn't name one (was mulling a fix
for th
d that this would be TRUE. Anything I'm missing or any precedent I should
> > be aware of?
> >
> >
> > On 2017-11-13 09:10, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Shiny CFJ:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Also means that any use of Agoran time over power 2 is uh... maybe not
> entirely valid. Agoran epochs should maybe be power 3.9 or something.
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:37 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> > I think we should be more cognizant of that particular cl
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Obviously, I vote for G.
In the interests of fairness, I should point out that's it's
conceivable that others can jump in late (depending on the
pending judgement), and also allowing it to fail quorum is
always an option.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote:
> I'd really love to see a ruleset ordered by power, so we can see if it still
> works at every step down the ladder. The intent I get from the precedent rules
> are that the power 4 rules should all stand without external support, then all
> the 4+3.9 rules,
gement falls in a way that
> > makes this declaration possible)?
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2017-11-13 10:45, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Obviously, I vote for G.
> >>
> &
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > - On various occasions, rulekeepors combined multiple changes made by a
> > single proposal into one change in the history. Rule 1681 is clear that
> > each Rule Change must be recorded separately. While I would like to correct
> > all this data, doing
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > 7951* G. 1.0 Zombie Auctions G. OP [2]
> Re-enacts rule 1885 with power 1.
>
> G., do you have the history of this rule available someplace?
>
Oh sorry, thought I posted that somewhere!
>From Zefram: http://www.f
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 18:56 Madeline wrote:
>
> > We have our current ordering for a reason - it's the easiest to read,
> > which is hard enough to handle sometimes with how the ruleset gets.
> >
> > I probably wouldn't want to have it ordered by power
Proto: SimAgora 2000
[We've done farmland/big maps. We've never built a town/city.]
#include
// Assume auctions are defined sensibly and generally debugged.
#include
// Assume players get a fixed #shinies/month + off
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote:
> Obvious thing I noticed: Plats are an indestructible asset, so destroying them
> if their upkeep isn't paid is... weird.
It is odd; indestructible just means that a player can't destroy it
by announcement any time e wants, but rather it can only be done as
Which proposal# was it I'd be interested in the before/after.
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Actually, I realize some of the language in my recent Cards proposal
> may be less than optimal. Specifically
>
> I use AP to call a CFJ with the text: "[A]buses of official power for
> personal
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> It was a campaign proposal named "Card Reform and Appealability"
Oh that's why I didn't see it in the Proposal adoption lists. thx!
(I also feel better because I totally ignored voting on the
campaign proposals I think :P )
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> https://github.com/alercah/ruleset/commit/201a163c824e65887964602985dda72012ec9183
Ooooh. *very* useful...
Except... the fearmongor is no longer an office :(
But I think, on reading, you're still required to hold and complete
the election. I mean, I can't see anything (once the election is
started) that requires the office to exist except the very very
last step (the winner of the election becoming
Um, CoE on what?
There's nothing wrong as per Rule 107 or the Election Procedure, is there?
I mean, to stop the requirement for running the Decision? The stated
purpose of the Decision is to "select the winner of the election".
That's got no bearing on whether the winner gets installed into th
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
>
> Thanks for catching this, I was about to publish my ADoP report.
>
I don't think the CoE/Response stopped anything.
By R107, a CoE only invalidates a Decision if the Initiation Notice
lacks something on items 1-4 in Rule 107, and it looks like you got
them
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
>
> What do you mean "CoE on what"? Alexis's message contains a CoE.
Just replied, but look at R107, and ask which item your initiation
announcement was missing? I wanted to know which of those items
Alexis was alleging wasn't provided. "The Fearmongor office
ork on the web publication.
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 21:16 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >> >
> >> https://github.com/alercah/ruleset/commit/201a163c824e65887964602985dda72012ec9183
> >>
> >> Ooooh. *very* useful...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>
, and only in a slightly joking way. It's
> fine, obviously.
>
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > Um, are you asking for my github archive? I published that last month,
> > it's here... I've used it to search
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Title: "Putting Agora on a Map"
>
A broad rather than detail comment:
It's a bit hard to see the use for the machinery here when there's
little way to connect it to the rest of the game (other than votes).
You say that "powers" are what you need
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I am expanding the AP system. In some rules, you can spend 1, 2, 3, 4, or 6
> AP to perform map actions. Action Points keep on being hated on and it's
> likely that they will be phased out soon. So I gave them a new use as a
> kind of limit placed on ma
This is perfectly understandable to me and I plan to assign it in
the usual cycle. If someone thinks it *isn't* a CFJ, please CFJ
on whether V.J. Rada just created a CFJ.
Which is probably advisable, because when I enter this into the
database I'm going to enter it in the usual font and the poi
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> I change my emotion to Joyous because today is my birthday.
>
> Unrelated thing: I also claim a Blue Ribbon. (Is that actually valid, or is
> there something I'm missing? The qualification seems a bit too easy, and I
> feel like I have to be missing something
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> The only problem I see with this right off the bat is that G. has already made
> a draft proposal dealing with land in a different way (see DIS: SimAgora
> 2000). These two proposals would probably
Yes I agree we should do one or the other not both. I don't
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 12:19 -0500, ATMunn wrote:
> > Makes sense. Another ribbon question: Any ideas on when I should give
> > a White Ribbon? It's probably better to not give one away unless I'm
> > absolutely sure that I want to give it to a certain pers
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 09:25 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > As a counterpoint, if there's someone you feel has really served
> > as a mentor -- it's not always about the $$. (IIRC it was originated
> > as a "mentorship
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> Actually, is any of the ADoP's report self-ratifying? It says nowhere in rule
> 2138 that it is.
All switch sections of reports self-ratify by R2162. Interim is
not a switch, officeholder is though.
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I would like to get more annotations into the FLR, but I do not have the
> time to go through CFJs and prepare them. G., are you going to continue
> suggesting annotations in a place that is easy for me to see? Or should
> judges do that?
These are the o
conomy btw
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> > > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I will take Arbitor, if no one wants it, but I will not do so
>
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I won't be resigning, though; we need a rulekeepor and it's fun, and tailor
> is pretty trivial.
Good reminder. Arbitor is fun for me atm when I'm not thinking about the
whole economy thing. Unless someone is really dying to do it (doesn't sound
like
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I'll gladly provide anyone a copy of my then-up-to-date ruleset, until I
> get web publication working again at which point I hope to remember to keep
> the website up to date whenever I update a local copy. Probably slightly
> higher priority than that i
that the HLR was the main reason e came
> here and thought the rules were reasonable: so it is important. But yeah
> obviously I'm not that bothered.
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt w
Sorry, mis-type. I meant Proposal 7931:
> 7931* G. 3.0 Registration fix finally G. 1 sh.
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It was fixed by Proposal 7936, adopted November 6, unless there were
> CoE's on the voting results that I missed.
>
It was fixed by Proposal 7936, adopted November 6, unless there were
CoE's on the voting results that I missed.
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> It never was voted on. The loophole still exists.
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> On Nov 17, 2017 12:23 PM, "Alex Smith" wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2017
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Corona wrote:
> Ah, I suppose it would ve rude of me not to introduce myself; my
> (nick)name is Corona, and I've been reading the rules & mail for a
> while.
Hi Corona, and welcome to posting in Agora! (given that you've been watching
for a while already...) -G.
(In discussion so unofficial):
Missing whitespace in R869, likely from re-wrapping:
CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by any agreementwithout
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Corona wrote:
> Oh wait, that's about the Community Chest, which has a different shiny
> balance than Agora, right?
>
> On 11/17/17, Corona wrote:
> > Can't Agora just go in debt? That's outrageous! Nevermind, I'll just
> > get the 46 sh. by rule 2508.
Agoran monetary poli
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > * Define three “base” resources, and associated Zmet types. Let’s pretend
> > they’re Ores, Fungi, and Chipmunks.
> >
> > * Define three “refined” resources (G.’s Sports, Coupons, and Widgets), and
> > associated Zmet types.
> >
> > * To produce a Sp
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Did we conclude that player B actually can complete player A’s intents like
> this,
> these days?
Well it's right there in R1728:
3. The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the action
depends on support, the perfor
ould be wrong lol. This is just the way it seems like it'd work in my
> mind.
>
> On 11/17/2017 4:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > > * Define three “base” resources, and associated Zmet types.
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> We’ve had the Shinies system for approximately a year, so we may
> well be reaching the end of our experiment with it. It’s certainly
> been interesting, though I won’t necessarily say successful.
> Shinies-related problems have driven at least two o
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote:
> Since the party proposal is set to be passing, I'd like to get some good pun
> names brought in for our array of Politicians. I can offer rewards too (likely
> a shiny or two per name), and you'll be sparing us all from a terrible fate of
> auspol jokes!
Po
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> Haha, I think we've all forgotten about sarcasm online before.
>
> Also, I believe that the "proposal" G. mentioned is not an actual proposal,
> but more of an outline for one. In in actual proposal, the numbers would
> likely be rounded to the nearest whole
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017, Corona wrote:
> I'm not sure how would pegging Floating Value to the number of sh.
> Agora had at the end of the month would play out,
Since Agora's shinies are destroyed right near the beginning of the month,
the "end of the month balance" is meant to be an estimate of eco
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> >> The only problem I see with this right off the bat is that G. has already
> >> made
> >> a draft proposal
quick comments:
-You get rid of shinies then have land auctions in shinies (only reason
I wanted to keep shinies around was for these auctions, so not obvious
to me what to replace them with if you want auctions - which I do!)
- seems like you're keeping AP? Might make more sense to ditch th
Sorry, coffee hadn't hit yet. Took me embarrassing ages to spot the actual
error,
so I kept thinking "why did e replace a wrong number with the same wrong
number?"
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I identify the lack of clarity in the distribution announcement a
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> On 11/19/2017 1:57 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >
> > [ No more shinies, everybody! ]
[...]
> > and the minimum bid is 1 shiny.
> You got rid of shinies, so you should specify the currency it is conducted in
> and change the minimum bid to that currency
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > It makes sense for
> > ore to bars (and can they at least be coins? we're not Sparta),
>
> Okay fine. Coins it is.
If we can address the larger currency discussion before going further,
it would be much appreciated. I, for one, don't want to replac
On "unwritten precedent" (that used to be written, but is now
buried in precedent somewhere) is that, unless there is a good
reason not to do so, we tend to judge Truth or Falsity of CFJs
based on the facts at the time the CFJ was called (i.e. ignoring
changes that happened between the calling an
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Unfortunately for the cleverness of the rule, I find that Rule 2166 is
> explicit in defining “pay” as transferring “to another entity”. So, “to
> pay” without a recipient isn’t a mechanism explicitly defined in the
> rules. This may have w
explicitly require a recipient).
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> o: "cool cool, everything is completely fine *cries*"
>
> I think if that rule were interpreted as written: to ban any action not
> explicitly specified, it would break a whole lot of things.
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> o: "cool cool, everything is completely fine *cries*"
>
> I think if that rule were interpreted as written: to ban any action not
> explicitly specified, it would break a whole lot of things.
The current case aside, what else would it break?
Keep in mind,
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I note here that "by paying",
> another phrase used throughout the rules, has similar connotations of a single
> payment. On the other hand, if a rule used the past tense ("has paid") then it
> could be as many separate payments as the player liked.
He
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I support: I didn't pay for the Estate.
>
> Pledges are great right now! I love them. The "explicit restatement" rule
> should be removed though.
I agree I prefer a lightweight, straightforward, relatively easy-to-track
(and free!) option instead of gettin
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Judge Court[***] Recent
> - ---
> G. Night3556, 3567, 3563, 3579, 3580, 3582, 3595, 3596
> PubliusNight3558, 3561, 3574, 3576, 3591
> Corona Night
> o Day
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 2:20 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > > I support: I didn't pay for the Estate.
> > >
> > > Pledges are great right now! I love them. The "expl
itly allows me some self-interest,
so I'd be breaking the rules if I didn't do that :P.
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > Judge Court[***] Recent
> > > -
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > Right now our pledge system is based on bills of attainder (or more
> > correctly bills of pains and penalties), rather than justice.
>
> A further note: seperation of powers is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea
> in a system in which the legislative pow
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I think I needed to fix some typos that ATMunn pointed out, but I'd be
> happy if someone else did it for me.
ok, I started in on that. Corrected mostly, but here's a spot I don't
know what you intended:
> Subject to an asset's backing document:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > Because V.J. Rada did not pay 1011 shinies as a single action, eir purchase
> > failed, and this CFJ is FALSE. E retains all of eir shinies, because they
> > did
> > not in the end accomplish their clearly stated goal.
>
> I intend, with two support
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Yeah that's a good explanation that makes sense. I retract my intent (is
> this possible again?)
No. That's by design. In the past we had "scamming" where someone who
really *didn't* want the action done would announce intent, gather support,
then just dro
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >I disagree because of the fact that this is a game. While we have a fair
> >notion of ethics/justice here, principled voting is hindered by the
> generally
> >feeling on one side of "it's just a game and what e did is no big deal and
> >was kinda cool why s
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I create the following proposal. Everything is fine. This is not an attempt
> to win the Order of the Occult Hand which everyone has forgotten about
> apparently. Disclaimer: The previous sentence is probably false
>
> Title: Everything is fine
> AI: 2
> Cre
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Title: Putting Agora on a Map v3
> Author: Trigon
> Co-Authors: Aris, ATMunn, G., o, VJ Rada
Just to be clear; you're consciously getting rid of shinies, and
making it so you need Land to make Coins, but you need Coins to
buy land. I'm really asking y
t's broken...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > Title: Putting Agora on a Map v3
> > Author: Trigon
> > Co-Authors: Aris, ATMunn, G., o, VJ Rada
>
> Just to be clear; you're consciously getting rid of shinies,
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> On 11/19/2017 5:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley
> wrote:
> > > Title: Putting Agora on a Map v3
> > > Author: Trigon
> > > Co-Authors: Aris, ATMunn, G., o, VJ Rada
> >
> >
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > My main motivation - we've literally spent the last few months on shiny
> > bugs, ironed many out, and I'm just paranoid about going through such
> > a thing ag
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Reuben Staley
> wrote:
> > 1. every player with an amount of papers less than 2 an amount of
> > papers so that eir paper balance is equal to 2.
> >
> > [ This makes it so that impoverished players can m
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> Office Holder Since Last Election
> -
> Herald VACANT 2017-11-17[4] Ongoing
> ---
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> By announcement I make all players candidates.
(this fails and does nothing)
Well, it's a new idea so who knows if it works well, but the idea is
it allows you to campaign on "here's a new and fresh idea for this
office that I'll implement if you elect me."
You can see how it would work better for hard-coded matters of
economic policy: "if elected, I'll double the supp
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-11-20 at 09:48 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > You can see how it would work better for hard-coded matters of
> > economic policy: "if elected, I'll double the supply of land/halve
> > the cost of pending pr
Really nice to finally put back a requirement to track theses! (even
if it's just a SHOULD) It's nobody's job now, a long time ago it used
to be the Rulekeepor funnily enough:
> The Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Thesis approved by
> its Thesis Committee.
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017
So in the hideously-overwrought, "I'd rather deregister than play
this" contract rules, am I reading it right that I can't contract
out Officer duties as act-on-behalf actions because they're
"protected"? That's how I read it anyway.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Inflation: the game could actually just be a fun game in itself. Like
> "race to 1 billion" type thing.
In real-life economies, controlled inflation can be fine.
In standard boardgames, everyone racing in an inflationary economy is fine.
It ends up being "e
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 at 12:28 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > So in the hideously-overwrought, "I'd rather deregister than play
> > this" contract rules, am I reading it right that I can't contract
> > out Off
ey ever decided to rejoin the game, they would be much more
> wealthy than the active people, so that makes no sense.
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 4:19 PM
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> Also, keeping shinies around as a way to pay for things might
> >> discourage people from investing in the new econo
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> I (or anyone else, really) can invite you to the AgoraNomic GitHub org, but
> from there it might be kind of difficult.
Have I been invited? (kaydin).
If I'm already got a github repo of the CFJ website up, is it simple matter
to have it show up as agoranom
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:25 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> > > I (or anyone else, really) can invite you to the AgoraNomic GitHub org,
> > but
> > > from there it might be kind of diffi
Especially scams on new big systems.
In my mind, it points to the age-old problem of watching the watchmen.
Every time we have criminal punishments, we either (a) have a cumbersome,
process-laden system of justice that drags things out to the point of
apathy (e.g. Agoran Consent for pledges).
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue
> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians
> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not
> to use eir power. Then we
")
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to call
> sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies alone.
>
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 15:34 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to
> > call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies
> > alone.
>
> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violat
201 - 300 of 8209 matches
Mail list logo
