On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > 7941* Alexis 1.0 HTML Scrubbing Alexis 1 sh.
>
> This does not make any rule changes. I will, however, take it on myself as
> Prime Minister to contact the Distributor to make the request.
Having received such co
*test*
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Is it possible to configure Mailman to pass through messages with text/html
> parts but to strip them, instead of rejecting them outright?
Well, that's odd. According to the logs, you had two messages
rejected with the message "The message
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 8:05 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> Not sure how it works on a-o but a-b has a 500K limit.
>
> I sent omd an email about the stuck email, just in case.
Yeah, it was caught in the queue due to being over 500K. I approved
it and changed the limit for all lists to 1500
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 11:50 PM comex wrote:
…okay, last time I thought I just forgot to change my sender name to
'omd', but I definitely did so for this message; it seems Gmail is just
bugged. Looks like it works after switching back to the old Gmail.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:34 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I don't know how mailing lists work. Is a "separate" message sent from
> the list to each individual recipient? If so, is there any chance the
> stamps on each individual copy of the same message would vary?
> (obviously this might fall under
(CCing a-d in case someone actually didn't get it.)
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 7:06 PM, omd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been a bit busy since my last message, but in lieu of objections,
> I've gone ahead and replaced the lost config.pck file for
> agora-official with one
I've been a regular user of a Discourse forum for a few years, since
the Rust language community deprecated their mailing list in favor of
a Discourse instance.
Discourse has the interesting property that it actively seeks to allow
users to use it *as* a mailing list: receiving one email per post,
A few issues with the wording:
> > b. The option with the fewest valid ballots specifying it as the first
> > entry on the list is identified, and the outcome is the outcome of an
> > Instant Runoff decision as if that option had been removed from each valid
> > ballot that contained it.
It's
Just a quick note -
The FLR credits Proposal 7778 (in various places) as:
Amended(21) by P7778 'Instant Runoff Improved' (Alexis), 14 Aug 2014
But in fact I submitted it:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2015-July/033799.html
And it was actually adopted on
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify
> without any claim of error, then the information therein will be
> retroactively accurate... I think?
Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the report
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:20 PM Bernie Brackett wrote:
> it feels like there's a discussion going on involving what exactly single
> transferable vote means, so I feel like I should bring up that Score Voting
> has mathematically been proven to be better. Is there any reason not to
> switch to it?
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 3:19 PM Reuben Staley wrote:
> Having looked into the matter further, I can safely say that mistakes
> were indeed made. The following is my analysis.
Thanks for looking into it :)
I... never realized that Alexis (aka alercah) was the same person as
scshunt, despite havin
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 4:41 PM James Cook wrote:
> For (a): I think it depends what "gamestate" means. It's never really
> defined. But personally I was assuming the gamestate covers all the
> facts invented by the rules, and not realities, e.g. what happened in
> the past. But I'm not sure about
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:49 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> and, therefore, any attempt to impose a fine was retroactively INEFFECTIVE.
...wow, that's strange. Why the heck is rule 2531 designed to make
the gamestate (whether fines are EFFECTIVE, and thus indirectly
people's voting power) depend on so m
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On the subject of community size - welcome back, o and omd!!!
Thanks :)
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:05 AM D Margaux wrote:
> Additionally, I do not think the conditional vote “required the report
> ratification to go through before the voting period ended”; did it? If the
> empty reports self-ratify tomorrow, wouldn’t your vote still resolve to FOR?
> That is becau
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:12 AM David Seeber wrote:
> I vote as follows:
>
> 8178 - FOR
> 8179 - FOR
>
> I declare null and void any other votes cast on my behalf.
I'm afraid you have to do this in the opposite order. The "null and
void" bit presumably successfully retracted the ballots cast on
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:57 PM James Cook wrote:
> > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> > compelling in the face o
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 6:54 PM James Cook wrote:
> When I try to load https://mailman.agoranomic.org/, I see a certificate error:
Sorry about this! Despite the "Attn omd" in the subject, my eyes saw
the "DIS:" and jumped over the rest; I was putting off reading Agora
li
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:21 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> We do interestingly have a clause that says "The Rules SHALL NOT be
> interpreted
> so as to proscribe unregulated actions.". I suppose under my
> interpretation, anyone who so interprets the rules in any circumstance will
> be criminally liable,
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:15 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> As a person, you possess one and exactly one Citizenship switch. Sending
> messages from fake emails stating intent to register when you already
> have registered would not change the value of your personal Citizenship
> switch.
For some fun prec
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:36 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Given that Rule 2221 ("Cleanliness") permits correcting the
> capitalization of a rule, would that, for example, permit changing a
> rule from saying "shall" to "SHALL" (or vice versa)?
>
> Note: I'm not planning anything, the question just crosse
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:30 PM James Cook wrote:
> (I'm not suggesting we use Discourse, just that maybe similar options are
> available with the current software.)
It seems Mailman does support something like that:
https://wiki.list.org/DEV/DMARC
https://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-adm
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Ah, here's the protection I was looking for:
>
> R2350 (power=3):
> Once a proposal
> is created, neither its text nor any of the aforementioned
> attributes can be changed.
Hmm... it may still be possible to destroy the proposal,
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 2:24 PM Reuben Staley wrote:
> I bid TWO UNITED STATES DOLLARS.
(This fails because it does not "specify[] the amount of the Auction's
currency to bid" [R2550], since the currency is coins.)
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:59 AM Rebecca wrote:
>
> This exact thing was tried in about June of 2017 or 18, soon after the new
> "boom and bust" money system came into effect (written by nichdel). I think
> it was agreed by all that a duty was a duty imposed by the rules or
> something of that natu
On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 4:50 PM Rance Bedwell wrote:
>
> I want to attempt to banish The Ritual, but I do not believe it is currently
> possible to do so. For this reason I Call For Justice for this statement:
>
> "The value of N Agoran Consent currently required to banish The Ritual (Rule
> 2596
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 12:56 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> It's really interesting to me, because within my discipline (law), those
> sorts of hyperliteralist interpretations simply wouldn't work. Lawyers would
> just intuitively know somehow that this kind of interpretive move would be
> out of boun
Idea: Create a Rules-defined "notice and comment" process for judgements.
Since I became active, there have been two judgements in CFJs about
minor scams I attempted (3728 and 3833).
The first one I had a minor quibble with, so I moved for
reconsideration, but nobody bothered to support it. I th
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:30 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I'm sorry, what does this mean?
Obsolete terminology for saying that I'm interested in judging cases.
I figured it was okay since G. would understand it, but maybe I should
have been less cute.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It won't self-ratify even then. The resolution of a CFJ doesn't
> "cause it to cease to be a doubt" the way a denial of claim does. The
> only way to make it undoubted post-CFJ is to either just publish a
> "new" document, or re-CoE the old on
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:42 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing:
> Publishing a duty-fulfilling report:
> with:
> Publishing a duty-fulfilling official report:
So this would now read
* Publishing a duty-fulfilling official report: 5 coins. For
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM James Cook wrote:
> Requiring notice and comment would make it a bit more complicated and
> time-consuming to judge a CFJ, which might not make sense for simple
> ones.
Well, most simple cases shouldn't have any comments submitted, and in
that case my design would
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:56 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Would such a section become precedent just as the normal part of a
> judgment would, or would it be purely informational?
I'd say it shouldn't need to be a separate section at all. If the
comment is unavailing, then sure, tack on an sentence at
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:44 PM James Cook wrote:
> Could you elabourate? Even if we should pretend zombies are assets, it's
> not always true that an asset's owner CAN transfer it. E.g. if I had blots
> and auctioned them off, I don't think anything would allow me to transfer
> them to the winner
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:40 PM James Cook wrote:
> Ha, maybe. Here's another argument, though: Master is secured at a
> power threshold of 2. Rule 2551 ("Auction End") only has power 1. I
> doubt Rule 2551 can get around that by saying it's Agora doing it
> rather than R2551, but if it can, I gu
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I meant to ask about that. Is there a reason all of these terms use the
> "-or" suffix even when normal English would use "-er"?
Just a silly custom, though I don't know its origin.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:11 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Hi omd,
>
> When a Motion to Reconsider is filed, I drop the old arguments
> entirely from the case log, so the old judgement isn't mistaken for
> precedent (there's no objective way of knowing whether motion-filers
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 2:23 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Recent habits, especially for self-filed motions, are "I self-motion
> to reconsider, and submit the entirely same judgement except for a
> couple clarifying paragraphs" (like I did for 3733) or trivial
> mistakes ("I wrote this long argument fo
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 6:08 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> An action that is regulated by a requirement-creating entity CAN
> only be performed as described by the entity, and only using the
> methods explicitly specified in the entity for performing the given
> action. The entity SHALL N
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:40 PM David Seeber wrote:
> I also cause myself to receive a Welcome pack since I have not received one
> since I returned from being a zombie.
Welcome back, by the way.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux wrote:
> In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the
> case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is
> prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it
> says. That is a parado
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:37 PM Rebecca wrote:
> I would like us all to informally vote TRUE, FALSE, PARADOXICAL, DISMISS or
> IRRELEVANT on CFJ 3737, the subject of so much discussion in the other
> thread. This would help to determine which option Agora as a whole stands
> behind, so we don;t ha
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:08 PM Reuben Staley wrote:
> Recuse D. Margaux? What good would that do?
Kick the can down the road until the rule can be fixed.
> Also not really something we can force upon em...
We can't force em to judge any particular way either.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 8:24 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
> This proposal codifies a few common sense rules about timelines. For
> instance, retroactive modifications are possible, but work by creating
> a legal fiction, rather than by changing what actually happened.
Overall: Seems quite well designe
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:03 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be
> sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include
> conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs.
This seems like it could allow contracts
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:33 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> > This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is.
> It was a term of art that my proposal would have created. Just
> incorporating my definition here doesn't work as it was "An action is
> game-defined if and only if it is a regulated act
n the circumstances under which it can be attempted
or performed are not within the Rules' scope to define.
If that something literally *consists of* changing the gamestate, like
"making omd a player", then... well, I guess I *want* that to count as
a game-defined action, since I
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:44 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined
> > action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e.
> > which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the
> > rules. I admit this could
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> >
> >> Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in
> >> other binding entities. To the extent specified by the Rules,
> >> contracts CAN define or regulate other actions. Any actions that
> >> m
Proto: Deregulation, but less so
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An action is regulated if it:
(a) consists of altering Rules-defined state (e.g. the act of
flipping a Citizenship switch), or
(b) is a Rules-defined term of art with no inherent meaning
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> In my view, "inherent meaning" is a bit vague. I certainly could write
> up a document that suggests a change to the laws of my country, print a
> bunch of copies, and then start handing them out to everyone I know.
> That seems like it would fu
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I think you’re making it worse rather than better. I’d drop the “with no
> inherent meaning” bit; a judge could easily interpret it to forbid
> "distribute" being a term of art, since distributing something has meaning.
The point of that phr
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Also, the bit in Mother May I should still go in the regulated actions
> rule. Let's keep all the regulated action stuff in one place. I really like
> the current phrasing; it's extremely elegant (honestly, more so than the
> one here), and n
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 9:58 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Looking at this again, if the Rules state that doing something is a
> crime (such as lying in a public message), then that arguably alters the
> Rules-defined "state" of whether or not they are guilty of a crime. Is
> this a valid reading, and is
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions, except
> that the performance of them must include at least clearly and
> unambiguously announcing the performance of the action:
What does it mean to "define" an
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> CFJ: An Agoran decision to select the winner of the election has
> a voting method of AI-Majority.
>
> Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices, Power=3):
> Adoption index is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
> decis
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:42 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> So would I face prejudice if I were to open the exact same CFJs again
> later once we actually get CHoJ fixed?
Fine by me.
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:52 AM James Cook wrote:
> Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto).
Why that rule? It's only a few months old; there are a lot of other
rules that are much more stale.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 5:27 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I point my finger at omd for failure to assign a judgement to CFJ 3752
> in a timely fashion.
Apologies; I forgot I was assigned to this one. I'll judge it tomorrow.
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:18 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I'll leave the CFJ up in hopes that it gets judged in a way that avoids
> this whole mess (although I'm not sure that there's enough space to
> bring in Rule 217 factors and get "best interests of the game").
Gratuitous:
I get from my apartment
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:41 PM Rebecca wrote:
> you absolutely can! we are not the typo police.
Not that it matters, but it probably wasn't a typo.
CFJ 1885 (called 26 Jan 2008): "AGAINT" is a variant spelling of
"AGAINST", not a customary synonym for "FOR", despite its former
private us
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 3:43 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Actually, everyone should destroy their spaceship. Then clause 3 has
> equal standing for both.
>
> I destroy the spaceship in my possession.
Me too.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:48 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > The answer may depend on whether "response to a CoE" is an official duty
> > (R2143):
> >An official duty for an office is any duty that the Rules
> >specifically assign to that office's holder in particular
> >(regardl
On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 5:48 PM James Cook wrote:
> Our H. Distributor tried in June to enable from-address-rewriting for
> messages with this problem, but I'm not sure it worked. See for
> example my 2019-07-01 message to the discussion list [0].
>
> omd, do you have any insi
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 9:46 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Oh, also, well you’re at it, could you change “correctly identified” to
> “correctly and publicly identified” so that no one, like, hides the fact
> that they’ve identified it and then still claims they’ve invalidated the
> decision?
I just s
(...did this create a proposal? It was sent to business but doesn't
say "proposal".)
Will Gmail deliver a list message if it's sent from a different IP?
Testing my new address filter.
On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 3:25 PM omd wrote:
>
> Will Gmail deliver a list message if it's sent from a different IP?
On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 7:37 PM James Cook wrote:
> I got this one.
Yeah... I was trying to send from an unsubscribed address, but I
didn't realize that when sending from an alias, Gmail would keep my
normal address in the envelope. Whoops.
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:56 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> === CFJ 3783 ===
>
>Jason Cobb has more than 2000 Coins.
>
> ==
Proto-judgement:
Hmm. I'm torn. I agre
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> If you care about how close someone else is, you can track it yourself
> (all the necessary information's public). It wouldn't surprise me if
> someone started publicly tracking it unofficially; the difference is
> that gameplay doesn't have to
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> 7693 Revised Province of Agora
I informally nominate this one for a Silver Quill, for causing an
inordinate number of words to be shed scamming and counterscamming it,
a situation which ended not when the issues were settled but when
everyone go
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> That was just a proposal for tightening-up of language. It didn't try to
> introduce any new mechanics.
Oops. I meant to nominate the proposal which originally introduced
the pending process, which is in fact 7728 (Even More Restricted
Distri
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Hey omd, been getting 404s on the agoranomic archives for the
> past couple days... -G.
I think it's actually since yesterday, when I switched webservers... I
tested http://agoranomic.org, but forgot the list stuff.
Should be fixed now.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> I thought (and Wikipedia agrees) that IRV stages without a majority winner
> (which includes any with a top tie) choose (one or more) losers, not a
> winner.
Ah, yes. Thinko.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:22 PM, omd wrote:
>> (d) If the valid options are ordered lists of preferences, the
>> outcome is decided using instant-runoff voting. In case
>> multiple valid preferenc
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> If two people have expressed interest in judging but
> have both been remitted, is the Arbitor prohibited from assigning
> either one to the case?
Good point. I will amend.
2): ais523 Warrigal
voted FOR without pseudo-acronym (4): omd Tiger Tekneek Roujo
G. attempted to be ambiguous about it, but either way, pseudo-acronym
wouldn't hit 50%.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> Do you really need special list admin powers for that? Testing...
You don't, but a quick archive grep suggests that nobody tried this in
a voting message. I also doubt it would work legally, any more than
you can publish something by putti
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> What Ørjan means ("Testing...") is that e slipped it into a field of
> that last email...
Yeah, I know. But I checked the aforementioned archive to verify that
nobody did the same in a message actually containing a vote.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> no worries! I'll deputize to assign the CFJ if no one jumps into the
> Arbitor role by tomorrow. -t.
I'm willing to do it, but do you have a copy of the current state of
your interested judge list?
(t.?)
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I announced a couple months ago that I was defining "interested" by
> "voted at least once in the last couple weeks of Assessor's reports,
> and hasn't explicitly said they *weren't* interested." In other
> words, being interested enough to pl
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> proscribe a task for the Defendant to perform in a timely
prescribe?
> The defendant's performing of the apology or task is an act of
> penance that has the effect of destroying one Red Card (if any)
> in eir po
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:43 AM, tmanthe2nd . wrote:
> Proposals 7773 and 7774 gives the wrong ID number for the rule it amends.
> Rule 2455 does not exist. So, the proposals don't actually do anything.
So they do. Nice catch.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Proto (I was thinking about this already)
>
> In the Silver Quill voting, each player picks eir
> first (5 points), second (3 points) and third (1 point)
> choices. Proposal with the most points wins.
Well, this is a Borda count; I propos
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It's the degree of difficulty. Determining eligible players requires finding
> a single
> week-old report, which well within the realm of "clear".
A report with the list of proposals (with ID and title, but not text)
was published two weeks
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> Rule 2358, which defined Win by Paradox, was present in the ruleset
> published on 25 August 2013, but absent in the ruleset published on 17
> December 2013. I couldn't find any proposals which repealed the rule.
> So where did it go?
Proposal
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I support. Why not?
To vote, you'll have to wait for the proposal to be distributed by the Promotor.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:15 AM, omd wrote:
> >> 7782+ the Warrigal 3.0 Power Always Controls Mutability
> > AGAINST - this would prevent proposals from modifying Power>3 rules,
> > because Rule 106 is Power
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Well my goodness, hi.CFJ: Quazie is a player.
Arguments: I don't see any reason why "I attempt to leave" would be ineffective.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
> The intent is at least as clear as the preceding one. If neither are
> sufficient, then Quazie never became a player. If both are, e briefly was
> but then left. In both cases, the outcome is the same in regards to this
> CFJ: TRUE.
Thi
Proto: RFCs (AI=1.7)
[A new proposal mechanism for Ephemeral rules. Inspired by Asimov's short
story "Franchise", where every year a computer picks a single "most
representative" American as the Voter of the Year...
Alternately, it could be seen as an inversion of the idea of Moots: they
convert
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> You know, I'm starting to feel like Agora really isn't the nomic for
> me. Whenever we're faced with a choice between multiple valid and
> justifiable interpretations of the rules, we seem to rarely simply go
> with whichever option is most c
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Travis Briggs wrote:
> As someone who is thinking about registering, I was just wondering, what is
> the canonical source of current rules?
>
> The link on the homepage points to a text file that says "go see
> http://agora.qoid.us/current_flr.txt"; which itself is
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Did a quick re-write of The Game of Agora category in the Less Logical
>> Ruleset style. In terms of precedence, assume footnotes for each
>> rule are appended to main text of rule. This re-write sho
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, omd wrote:
>> Somewhat related non-homepage-related ideas:
>> - Non-fixed-width ruleset
>> - Better rule browser
>
> - Searchable Case Database
That's existed for a long time, I just ha
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> For the first 30 days after this rule is first enacted, the first player
>> during
>> a UTC day to, by announcement, claim the day’s $$$, causing them to gain 50
>> $$$.
>> Claiming a day’s $$$ CANNOT be automated.
>
> The first sentence is
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, omd wrote:
>> - Mention that reading the entire ruleset is not a requirement for joining.
>> - More generally, there should be a guide for new players.
>
> Honestly, rather than a guidebook, maybe we
1 - 100 of 1475 matches
Mail list logo
