On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Q*Bert has a color switch,
add "tracked by the cartographer"
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > I transfer 1 coin to Quazie and Ouazie pays 1 coin to Agora for the
> > land e won, me acting on eir behalf
If Quazie didn't have the coin when the auction ended, eir bid was
cancelled (R2551):
When an Auction ends, any bid placed by an ent
I thought we had that patched in the definition of "spend", but looks
like "spend" is no longer a defined thing?
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> True. We should probably add that to a general disambiguation rule.
> Seems to pop up a lot.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:26
othing should automatically prohibit illegal actions.
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >> At least that was the direct and specific intent when I wrote it - I
> >> intended
> >>
have the money at the end of the voting period. In fact, this is in
> some ways philosophically superior, given that the persons own action is
> considered the violation.
>
> -Arso
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:08 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
The thing about using the "is allowed to" language instead of CAN is
that it triggers the whole method in R2466, that includes a CAN,
specifies how to do it, and includes legal consequences.
Putting a CAN here without all that language doesn't have a method
(by announcement or what?) or explain t
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> If we're going with the penalties transfer option, it probably makes sense
> to say somewhere that the class of crime committed is equal to the one that
> the person acted on behalf of was induced to commit.
>
> -Aris
It might be easiest to do this in
y ... then the player CAN
act on behalf by announcement with these results"
And R2532: "A zombie's master is granted Power of Attorney over the
zombie".
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The thing about using the "is allowed to" language instead of C
permitted" but you could physically move your car into that
> space. The double meaning only arises in our ruleset.
>
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 4:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > I wanted to emphasize the CAN issue here because it actually leads to
> > the opp
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Agreed. I was about read to call for a motion of no confidence, but
> this is eminently reasonable. I think it's clear that zombies need
> to be substantially weakened, however.
Yah, my main point in doing this (other than getting the Scare in) was
t
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Agreed. I was about read to call for a motion of no confidence, but
> > this is eminently reasonable. I think it's clear that zombies need
> > to be substantially weakened, howeve
The point is to charge some meaningful upkeep cost to zombie owners,
using the "scare" mechanism in the rules already. But I think this
version is needlessly complicated, and gameable as already pointed
out (by two zombie masters colluding), and isn't "scary".
I think a simple "pay N to a neutra
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> I still have that pledge?
>
> I intend, without objection, to withdraw all pledges that I own.
>
> [I think I might have done this before and just forgotten to actually follow
> through with the intent.]
For the record (for everyone), those older pledges we
e bug fix needed for clarity).
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I destroy my pledges as well, without objection.
>
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018, 12:14 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> &
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> 8042* G. 1.0 Agorans are Vulcans Aris
> PRESENT, I like the idea of silliness and never got to be Silly, so I'd at
> least like something similar to replace it.
I also like the idea of silliness. The problem with current version is
Proto : Let's really define payment solidly please, finally.
Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions:
If the Rules associate a non-negative fee (syn: cost, price,
charge), with an action, or state that an action CAN be performed
by paying a fee, that action is a fee-
be interesting to allow contracts to define fee based actions in
> the same way that contracts can define assets. Other than that, which I'm
> not sure is worth the headache, I like this proto.
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 11:56 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
>
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > Proto : Let's really define payment solidly please, finally.
> >
> >
> > Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions:
> >
> > If the Rules
ly in rules]
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > > > If the Rules associate a non-negative fee (syn:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 13:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
> > otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e
> > is performing the act
eal) fee is impossible to pay and is simply equivalent to
> making the action impossible.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > I tried a version with general assets, if this is ugly can restrict to
> > currencies...
&
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Hang on for a second. I don't get what wrong with paying a fee of 0. The
> fee for a given action is defined. If I pay a fee of 0, then I haven't paid
> the specified fee for the action, so I can't do anything. The only case
> where it comes up is when
that it would
> work, but I can see why you might want to be extra careful with the edge
> case. Any thoughts on my other points?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 5:48 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> &g
This scam was due to the pay bug and could have been done (sorta)
with contracts too, right?
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> It's clear that zombies are way to powerful and need to be weakened
> substantially. Proposed restrictions:
>
> - 1 zombie per player max
> - Zombies can be d
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > Also, I like the multiset. The wording seems to me to be a clean, generic
>
> In my intuition, all multisets of assets are currently sets, because there are
> no *truly* identity-free assets. But it mig
The scam comes from here:
A player CAN increase the rank of a facility e owns that is at eir
location by exactly 1 by announcement by paying any upgrade costs
of the facility for that specific rank.
"Pay" doesn't say "pay to Agora". And the Assets rule says "Pay" is a
syno
e who have not paid
> upkeep fees on any of eir facilities."
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:00 AM Kerim Aydin
> > wrote:
> >
> &g
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> By contrast, if
> we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same
> number, because it's a singleton.
Thanks - this sentence gave me a lightbulb mo
. It's frustrating having buildings or other assets in
> an uncertain gamestate.
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Really the problem is that defining "pay" = "transfer" is a complete
&
(Useful for all kinds of upkeep costs)
A switch is a Debt switch have possible values consisting of sets
of Rules-defined currencies (the debt load), with a default of
value of empty (0). Any non-empty debt load is "unpaid", a
empty debt is "paid" or "paid off".
ote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think you mean a non-empty multiset. Also, I don't see any reason to
> >>>>>> require the set to be non-empty. That's sensible for constant fees but
> >>>>>> could break some types
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, but to me this really sounds lime you're talking about types of
> > rule defined currency, not instances. This is especially clear because one
> > can't have a set of instances that does not d
>From Rule 2166/26:
If a rule, proposal, or other
competent authority attempts to increase or decrease the balance
of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the
currency is created or destroyed as needed.
"paying" without a destination attempts to redu
I don't know if this will turn out to be useful, but I've put a protos repo
on our github:
https://github.com/AgoraNomic/protos
I've put in there an Assets start-of-proto. Right now, it's a copy of the
assets rule, where I've clipped out secondary stuff that may be better housed
in other ru
you need to do.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Actually this is may be huge hole. And I have no idea what "competent
> authority" means. I'm an officer - that's pretty authoritative. And
> my reports are fairly timely and accurate - that's fairly com
wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > Players (19) (by Rule 869, Persons with 'Registered' Citizenship, z=zombie)
> >
> > Player Contact
> > Registered
> > --
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > So if another rule says "you can do X by paying [without
> > destination]", then since paying for it is an attempt to decrease
> > your balance, that's a pretty s
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> N I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself speaker.
Ørjan offered a theory that zombies CANNOT support anything - while it
hasn't been tested in court, I agree with it because of use of the word
"consent" in R2124:
> A Support
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the
> > intent and the master supporting. Which e would have had to do anyway,
> > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism.
That depend
ependent action (and
that would also make the deregister w/3consent a genuine check on power,
if the zombies became concentrated in too few hands).
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > > I don't think there's any
ant
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't know if this will turn out to be useful, but I've put a protos repo
> >> on our github:
> >> https://github.com/AgoraNomic/protos
This CFJ doen't answer the question.
The question is: If the Rule says you CAN do something by "paying" without
specifying a destination, can you do it by paying anyone? (the important
thing is triggering the CAN that's tied to the action).
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> also in the
>
Most of them at this point. There's a few that are worse than others, some
especially bad for returning zombies (forcing a returning zombie to
deregister? what's that about?). But the version I proposed is what
I'll personally vote for in this next proposal batch, nothing further.
On Mon, 3
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> I give consent to Quazie to transfer... assets from any of my facilities
> to emself until the end of this month.
How do you give consent?
But more importantly, this has firmly passed my threshold of abuse too.
Corona, once a bug has been pointed out, it's
(while still giving you some reasonable amount
of nifty profits for finding the loophole). Genuinely, without any
Treasuror reports I have absolutely no idea where we are, it felt like
that last set of actions crossed the line to needing some reset but IDK...
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:01
On Tue, 1 May 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> b) If a dictatorship scam exists in the ruleset, the Registrar is
> required to use it.
Ooh yah I thought that looked pretty open-ended and hard for an
officer to obey but didn't connect the dots that far. yikes.
I was thinking the best way to fix this
On Tue, 1 May 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-05-01 at 09:47 +1000, Ned Strange wrote:
> > I think G and I with our 6 votes between us can block anything, or at
> > least anything with more than 1 AI. Funny.
>
> Hint: How many Ribbons do the zombies have? A zombie apocalypse isn't
> that
t and Agoran consent, to
> enter this judgement into moot. I object to my own intent.
What's the Agoran Consent part for? I can't find that in relation to Moots.
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:10 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Oh heck, if there's
Transparent Ribbons really are the best Ribbons - well done.
On Wed, 2 May 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I claim a Green Ribbon for Regkeepor. I claim an Orange Ribbon for
> Proposal 8041. I have, within the last 7 days, qualified for a
> Platinum Ribbon for being speaker. I have, within the last
On Wed, 2 May 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Crystals are a currency, with the Treasuror as their recordkeepor.
> They may be owned by Agora, persons, and contracts. The following units
> are defined:
>
> - Bronze Crystal, 1 crystal
> - Silver Crystal, 2 crystals
> - Gold Crystal, 4 cr
On Thu, 3 May 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Yep, just a shorthand. A Platinum Crystal is essentially an abbreviation
> for 8 crystals. The advantage of this is twofold: first, it sounds really
> cool; and second, they can be centrally redefined as nessicary. Do you
> think that it's actually unc
I see.
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2018, 11:32 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Why haven't we heard from o for a while? Well, e's clearly on an
> > expedition to the end of the board! Maybe even the 4 mysterious corners
> > of our beautiful
On Fri, 4 May 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> CoE: This report misses that 3 incense were added to Paydays before the May 1
> payday (Proposal 8040).
(also, 天火狐 was a zombie when that proposal passed so shouldn't have gotten
the 5).
I really like the side by side layout! Looks really nice overall. A
couple suggestions:
1. Since "preservation" land is always owned by agora, you can combine
the ownership and preservation maps, something like:
> - 6543210123456 +
> - -
>
On Sat, 5 May 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Or, we could just repeal them.
I use pledges. If you want to ditch something, ditch regulations.
On Sun, 6 May 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> I object: do this by proposal
Why?
On Sun, 6 May 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Or, we could just repeal them.
>
> I use pledges. If you want to ditch something, ditch regulations.
Actually nvm I forgot how poor the enforcement mechanism for pledges
was these days - I
On Sat, 5 May 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> (ATTN Assessor: the voting period for 8042-8045 is over. If you could
> please assess them soon, that'd be great. One auction is significantly
> less interesting. Also, I really want to have Q*Bert in the game soon.)
I was actually delaying because chan
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> I vote as follows, and act on behalf of Nichdel to vote the same:
May I suggest (to everyone), in the interests of quorum, not having
zombies vote PRESENT unless there's some clever game reason for it?
g to usurp dictatorship of Agora! ;) Or perhaps we could come
> to an agreement - you get one, I get one, as we have the most coins.
>
> I bid 11 coins in the zombie auction.
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> &g
mbies are, ofc. I was just hoping it would be
> like the last auction where everyone just kind of bid really low for some
> reason, but I am willing to bid 50+ coins for a zombie if it comes to that.
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 7:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
On Wed, 9 May 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >> > > > > > > LOT 1: the land unit at (+3, 0)
> >> > > > > > > LOT 2: the land unit at (+2, -1)
> >> > > > > > > LOT 3: the land unit at (+2, -2)
> >> > > > > > > LOT 4: the land unit at (+1, -3)
> >> > > > > > > LOT 5: the land unit at (+4, 0)
Rando
Just put a little note on this week's report that it acknowledges/includes the
correction and you don't have to do 2.
On Wed, 9 May 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Oh, come on. I was going to put out this week's report today. >:(
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018, 13:39 Corona wrote:
>
> > CoE:
> > When
In public, post this you must.
On Thu, 17 May 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> me no zombie wombie
>
tube.com/watch?v=I_izvAbhExY
> >
> > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > In public, post this you must.
> > >
> > > On Thu, 17 May 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > > me no zombie wombie
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>
ppened - maybe
something expired (just idle speculation, doesn't really matter since
direct mailman link works. Need to update the agoranomic.org front
page links tho).
On Sun, 20 May 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 12:48 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> &g
Weirdly, the "wrong" link works for Business and Discussion, and is
only broken for Official.
On Sun, 20 May 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Yes, that's a very old bookmark that's "always" worked, and it's the
> link used on the Agoranomic.org front page.
On Sun, 20 May 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> PAoaM is broken.
How? Seems to be running fine.
> Zombies are broken.
They're working as intended, but need game balance adjustments.
> Corona and G. are the only players that can do anything since they have
> more zombies and therefore more money.
H
On Sun, 20 May 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> G., could you explain in more detail why you thought Crystals was broken? I
> think I disagree, but it could just be that I don't understand your chain
> of logic.
>
> -Aris
Oh crud - I was confusing it with language that was in the Consolidated
Patch
On Mon, 21 May 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> don't you have to track Owes a Scare switches?
Each zombie whose master is another player has an untracked switch
and:
The Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches,
defined in a rule, that would otherwise lack an offic
g mechanics.
> >
> > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >
> > > I'm guessing Reuben is in a similar position to me of a plebeian (I'm
> > > guessing I'm poor because I was inactive) and if they're that unhappy
> > then
On Mon, 21 May 2018, C. V. wrote:
> 1) Zombies are popular, and the zombie owners probably have the majority of
> votes by now. Most recent attempt to nerf them has been blocked by VJ Rada
> (alone!)
I have to say it's a bit frustrating also that gameplay is generally
apathetic - e.g. there are
I've been working on a draft of zombie nerfing but it's taking a little
time. So I thought I'd post the tl;dr of what I'm going for, for
discussion...
So, the nerfing I'm putting together:
- Get rid of the 30/60 day status difference. When you've been silent
60 days, anyone CAN make you
t; strategically challenging for everyone involved than just having some
> mindless servant do it for you for free, as often as you want.
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 7:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I've been working on a draft of zombie
he causes of others' apathy toward Agora?
> >
> > And if you need to collect assets from the other side of the map or w/e,
> > you could just ask another player to do that/allow you to do it on their
> > behalf and offer them something in exchange,
On Tue, 22 May 2018, C. V. wrote:
> Hmm, I like that the zombie market supply/demand currently fluctuates. Your
> reform would mean that the zombie situation would be completely static: 1/3
> (or whatever is the ratio) of players would own one zombie each.
Do you think there should be some upper
On Tue, 22 May 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> It might be a bit weird for me to bring this up but: *Why* nerf? You earned
> those zombies, do as you please with them.
So I tried playing "grand dictator" last month. I made a proposal with
completely secret contents. But it was so apathetic around
On Tue, 22 May 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Hrmmm
>
> Blognomic did a "What is Fun and not Fun?" poll thing a while ago. Has one
> ever been done for Agora? If not, it could be a good idea do to aid to
> dispel the apathy.
Heh - maybe not a "formal" poll but those discussions just about exactly
a
t; > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:49 AM, Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 2:40 PM Kerim Aydin
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 22 May 201
On Tue, 22 May 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I'm going to suggest something that I've brought up before, which is a flat
> cap on how long someone can be a zombie before they're deregistered. A lot
> of the fun from zombies comes from them keeping the game dynamic. If zombie
> auctions become a re
On Tue, 22 May 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> VJ. Rada and PSS voted FOR, Trigon, Aris, ATMunn, G. (counted twice),
> and o voted AGAINST, and Murphy voted PRESENT.
ok, looking at this voting list, these are all the folks that have kept
playing recently, and those frustrated with the c
On Wed, 23 May 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > So the only one to attribute balance/needing a reset as a reason for not
> > playing
> was CuddleBeam?
>
> Also, to clarify, I much prefer a reset to a nerf. I don't like nerfs. From
> my point of view, you earned the power you have. Game balance is t
On Wed, 23 May 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> What could maybe be done is have Offices be "self-service" in a way. If you
> want to do something related to it, you look for the last mail and continue
> the chain.
>
> It would be a different Office paradigm though. But maybe it works. With
> the curr
On Thu, 24 May 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> Can we recruit new players lol? I miss o for one. And the japanese
> character guy. 6-7 is far less than we once had.
Yah it kind of got lost in the last exchange but that was a point...
PSS too...
pproach
> for recruiting? Posting in reddits/forums I guess?
>
> We could make a common copypasta for advertisement and go around with that.
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:35 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 24 May 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
&g
gt;
> > are we the world's longest running internet game?
> >
> > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 7:57 AM, Kerim Aydin
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was wondering a couple months back if a 25-year anniversary was an
> > > occasion
I and my zombies will vote for whomever, at the end of this week,
has given o the most apples (or corn at the apple exchange rate), to
be used to move em around the board.
(I'm going to keep moving em too but I'm waiting for a report first).
On Thu, 24 May 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> I vote for myse
We've done splinter subnomics (like FRC) many times. If the uniqueness
of this idea is that they "share" R101, what happens if one branch votes to
Amend R101. Either there's now two versions (showing that these are just
two separate nomics that aren't linked - done before) or the different bran
verse has been
destroyed" with the exception of FRC).
On Fri, 25 May 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > FRC launched around Feb-Mar 1993 (it's listed with other committees in the
> > "Seventh Month" summary here:
&g
On Fri, 25 May 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> The FRC /is/ probably still part of Nomic World's gamestate, though.
> It's just that Nomic World itself is no longer a nomic because there's
> no way to change its rules.
>
> (That said, the culture at the FRC is such that trying to make any
> radical ch
On Fri, 25 May 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> > The FRC /is/ probably still part of Nomic World's gamestate, though.
> > It's just that Nomic World itself is no longer a nomic because there's
> > no way to change its rules.
It wouldn't work over email, but this conversation also had me wondering
whether the MOO and its final state lived on a disk anywhere!
The rules and the MOO structure (rooms and programming) were very intertwined,
e.g. the rules assume a MOO-programmed-solution for voting and all other
interact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOO
though I think the software we're using was actually a MUD:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD
On Sat, 26 May 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> What's MOO?
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 12:45 AM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>
> >
9 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just saw this thread and wanted to mention that as the summer rolls
> > around, I may return.
> >
> > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 19:08 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
for former
> zombies thing going)
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Ned Strange
> wrote:
>
> > Noo! MY POWER IN THIS GAME IS GONE.
> >
> > welcome back
> >
> > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Kerim Aydin
> > wrot
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> Because it would be easy to change the result probabilities in this way, I
> don't think this satisfies "SHOULD use a method for which the final
> probability distribution can be readily confirmed".
I personally consider this a very weak SHOULD. We f
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> > > > > AUCTION 1: the white land unit at (+3, -1)
> > > > >
> > > > > AUCTION 2: the white land unit at (+5, 0)
> > > > >
> > > > > AUCTION 3: the white land unit at (+6, 0)
I've just noticed issues with these three auction announcements -
I think they ar
eap.
> And while it's probably a bad idea to encourage the exploitation of bugs, this
> is probably the cheapest it's going to get. So if any of y'all nerds were
> planning on donating to o's journey, now is objectively the best time to do
> so.
>
>
s;
> therefore, I propose we ignore it this time.
>
> On 06/01/2018 11:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> > > > > > > AUCTION 1: the white land unit at (+3, -1)
> > > > > > >
> > &
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> CoE: All non-preserved facilities were destroyed on the first of June due to
> lack of upkeep paid.
Meaning all assets in those facilities are lost, correct?
Ok, I personally consider that a material loss that came from the lack of
Officer Reports, p
601 - 700 of 8209 matches
Mail list logo
