To the best of my knowledge, Minister without Portfolio was held by
these players when it was first adopted:
Eris (joint win on 2/24/06) <- Speaker
Murphy (win on 3/18/07)
Human Point Two (win on 5/22/07)
Levi (win on 8/21/07)
I'm assuming that CFJ 1807 will be judged false. If it's jud
On 11/27/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does this operate as a mailing list? It doesn't seem to have any way to
> subscribe other than by having a "Google Account", which is presumably
> concerned with the Google Groups website. I've always found these groups
> impossible to use as a ser
Of course, /right/ after I send that out, I remember that another
batch of Red Marks were platonically awarded about an hour ago.
Corrections coming up shortly.
As of the last Herald's report (June 21), these players were already
recorded as having Long Service titles:
Three Months Long Service: Goddess Eris, Goethe, Sherlock
Six Months Long Service: Michael, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root, Sherlock
Nine Months Long Service:Michael, Murphy, OscarMe
On Tuesday 27 November 2007 18:07:44 Levi Stephen wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > I would like to encourage everyone to vote against my first, somewhat
> > malformed proposal entitled "No decay!" (5323) So, I will grant 100 blue
> > marks to all who vote against it (regardless of his or her
On Tuesday 27 November 2007 18:03:47 comex wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > I would like to encourage everyone to vote against my first, somewhat
> > malformed proposal entitled "No decay!" (5323) So, I will grant 100 blue
> > marks to all who vote against it (regar
On Nov 27, 2007 5:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You forgot that retraction may or may not have passed for some reason.
I think the problem to which Zefram has alluded is that the resolution
of proposals 5296, 5300, 5301, and 5302 included incorrect tallies of
the votes, and the subsequ
On Tuesday 27 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> I retract this, and submit the same CFJ, except that I bar Zefram from
> judging it.
You forgot that retraction may or may not have passed for some reason.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Tuesday 27 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> I CFJ on the following statement: sentencing someone to APOLOGY without
> giving a set of prescribed words means that the apology has a null set
> of prescribed words.
> Example:
> "I sentence comex to APOLOGY."
You beat me to it.
signature
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>That's the first I saw of that indication.
Here's (excerpts of) the message in my Agora mailbox:
|Received: from yzma.clarkk.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
| by yzma.clarkk.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
| id 2511780725; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 04:42:06 -0600 (CST)
|Delivered
On Tuesday 27 November 2007 17:20:46 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2007 5:14 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's the first I saw of that indication. I blame you for my loss of VCs
(if
> > any).
>
>
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-Novem
On Nov 27, 2007 5:14 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's the first I saw of that indication. I blame you for my loss of VCs (if
> any).
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-November/008101.html
The message was in the public forum, so it doesn'
On Tuesday 27 November 2007 17:10:23 Zefram wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >You cannot recuse. I sentenced him to APOLOGY. This case is already closed.
>
> As I indicated at the time, APOLOGY alone is not a valid sentence.
> APOLOGY must be accompanied by a set of prescribed words. The empty
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>You cannot recuse. I sentenced him to APOLOGY. This case is already closed.
As I indicated at the time, APOLOGY alone is not a valid sentence.
APOLOGY must be accompanied by a set of prescribed words. The empty set
is valid, but (as I interpret it) must be stated explicit
On Tuesday 27 November 2007 09:17:55 Zefram wrote:
> I hereby recuse pikhq from CFJ 1783. I hereby assign OscarMeyr as judge
> of CFJ 1783.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1783
>
> == CFJ 1783 ==
>
> Type:
On Nov 27, 2007 1:57 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Like if I was to introduce myself as "deregister"... :<
That sentence at least would have an interpretation that doesn't
require either making up semantics for a word or restructuring the
sentence.
-root
On 11/27/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unless I left out a different word and am introducing myself as "swing
> the mightily". :-)
Like if I was to introduce myself as "deregister"... :<
On Nov 27, 2007 1:37 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/27/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And if I were to say "I swing the mightily", are you to understand
> > that a "mightily" is an object, or that I'm swinging something in a
> > mighty manner and omitted a word?
> Ambigu
On 11/27/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And if I were to say "I swing the mightily", are you to understand
> that a "mightily" is an object, or that I'm swinging something in a
> mighty manner and omitted a word?
Ambiguous, but it's unquestionably a sentence about swinging.
Zefram wrote:
Josiah Worcester wrote:
I submit the following proposal, entitled "No decay!":
avpx is a coauthor of this proposal.
Interest index of 2.
Adoption index of 2.
Amend rule 2126 to read:
It's not entirely clear to me where you intend the text of the proposal
to start. If it starts
On Nov 27, 2007 10:17 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nonsense. If I were to say "I transfer an nkep to pikhq", you should
> reasonably be able to understand that an nkep is an object, although
> since you don't know what it is the transfer couldn't be a valid game
> action.
And if I were
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Agreements have generally been seen as granting the members additional
> powers and regulating the use thereof, but have not generally been seen
> as enforcing obligations to perform specific previously-discussed
> actions; the recently established equity co
On Nov 27, 2007 10:00 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree. Just because a nonsense word is used in a grammatical
> context where one might reasonably expect a verb to appear does not
> make it an action. Likewise, the statements "I transfer an nkep to
> pikhq" and "I walk nkep"
On Nov 27, 2007 9:50 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the definition of nkep and what occurs when you perform it are
> largely irrelevant. The question is not "Is it possible to perform
> nkep" or "what happens when I perform nkep" but "is it permissible to
> perform nkep". Sinc
On Nov 26, 2007 4:54 PM, levi.stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 21, 2007, at 10:20 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> >
> >> I am inclined to concur with Goethe's arguments as Appellant. Trial
> >> Judge Goddess Eris's arguments do nothing to address the case
On Nov 27, 2007 7:05 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/agoras-child Voila.
>
> Does this operate as a mailing list? It doesn't seem to have any way to
> subscribe other than by having a "Google Account", which is presumably
> concerne
Roger Hicks wrote:
>The question is not "Is it possible to perform
>nkep" or "what happens when I perform nkep" but "is it permissible to
>perform nkep".
For the purposes of R2110, the most relevant question is "is nkep
an action?". root's "what happens if I perform nkep?" tac
On Nov 27, 2007 9:43 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2007 9:32 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just because the action itself was nonsensical does not prevent the
> > inquiry itself from being about permissibility. In my opinion this is
> > an easy TRUE.
>
> So
On Nov 27, 2007 9:32 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just because the action itself was nonsensical does not prevent the
> inquiry itself from being about permissibility. In my opinion this is
> an easy TRUE.
So you claim that "to
nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneq
On Nov 27, 2007 9:26 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >== CFJ 1805 ==
> >Statement: CFJ 1799 is an inquiry case on the permissibility of an action.
>
> Since the judge in CFJ 1799 already ruled that the statement in that
> case was no
>== CFJ 1805 ==
>Statement: CFJ 1799 is an inquiry case on the permissibility of an action.
Since the judge in CFJ 1799 already ruled that the statement in that
case was nonsensical, this should be an easy FALSE.
-zefram
comex wrote:
>Pseudo-judgement: FALSE.
You are overdue to deliver real judgement in CFJ 1801.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Pseudo-judgement: CFJ 1800 <- TRUE
You are overdue to deliver real judgement in CFJ 1800.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Zefram attempted to
>establish such an agreement with Murphy to dispose of the purported
>Sparta CFJs, and presumably did establish such an agreement with pikhq.
There was indeed an agreement between me and pikhq of the same form t
On 11/27/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These are all excess CFJs, and I hereby refuse them.
>
> -zefram
>
They've all been retracted anyway.
Taral wrote:
>Can someone post an updated ruleset? I'm lost. :(
I will, sometime this week. I need to figure out which proposals were
adopted in which order. I'm not convinced that all of them that Murphy
has purported to resolve have been correctly resolved.
Right now I'm concentrating on Prom
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>Retract *that*, and submit this ("No decay", AI=2, II=2, co-author is avpx):
II=2 is not justified.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
> d) A player may spend 10 Marks in each of N+1 different colors
> to decrease another player's voting limit on a specified
> ordinary proposal by N (to a minimum of zero).
This will encourage duplication of contentious proposals, so that
supporters' voting li
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Proposal: White VCs for mentors
This makes it relatively easy for established players to get white VCs.
I deliberately made them difficult to get.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
> (+B) At the end of each week, each player who assigned a
> judgement to at least one judicial question (other than a
> question on sentencing) during that week without violating
> a time limit gains one Blue VC.
I prefer the present multiple-aw
> * Change "N+1 to increase another player's VVLOP by N"
>to "N to increase another player's VVLOP by floor(N/2)"
> * Change "N+2 to increase your own VVLOP by N"
>to "N to increase your own VVLOP by floor(N/3)"
> * Change "N+1 to decrease another player's VVLOP by N"
>to
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>http://groups.google.com/group/agoras-child Voila.
Does this operate as a mailing list? It doesn't seem to have any way to
subscribe other than by having a "Google Account", which is presumably
concerned with the Google Groups website. I've always found these groups
impo
42 matches
Mail list logo
