On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 7:04 AM ATMunn wrote:
>
> I sent a message to BUS yesterday in the thread following the latest
> Promotor report. Did anyone get it? I don't seem to have gotten a copy
> myself, but that could just be my client.
FYI – my qmail logs were set to rotate way too quickly to che
(The cross-post spam is required by R478.)
I intend, without objection, to make the forum now located at
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org Public.
I intend, without objection, to make the forum now located at
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org Public.
I intend, without objection, to make the forum now locat
On Friday, June 21, 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I vote AGAINST this. (This doesn't actually fix the bug, btw, and
> the second part of the bug was possible negative points).
>
IMHO, only a moron in a hurry would interpret the wording as having either
bug. I would invoke judgement on the matter,
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 22:57, omd wrote:
>> (The precise definition of "text" is generally left to the
>> Registrar's discretion, but should be conservative; no emoji.)
>
> Please just allow Unicode strings -- or better, stay silent on t
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> H. Distributor omd,
>
> I have not received any emails from the agora mailing list since
> your note that the list was "back up" on May 30.
>
> I can't find anything changed on my end. Anything on yours that
> might explain?
@400053923df7
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:09 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I like the idea of having separate repositories per report (like we have
> now), which also allows recordkeepors to manage their tooling (under this
> rule, I couldn't keep the rules in YAML, for example). I think we should
> keep anything o
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:28 PM Alex Smith wrote:
> Serious, strong objection to this. If I have to have a Github account
> to play, I'll just deregister.
If your reason for avoiding GitHub is what I think it is, IMHO it’s
misguided…
...but no worries, that’s just my opinion. If this passes
(...argh, I thought the Gmail mobile app would strip the copied and pasted
formatting, but apparently not. Enjoy the huge text…)
Currency is regulated by the rules and may not be created or destroyed by
any means except through a proposal with an Acceptability Index equal to or
higher than this rule's power.
Whenever a Player registers, Currency shall be created in the amount of
$1,000 and given to em. When a Player de-r
On Sunday 13 May 2007 7:55 pm, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Human Point Two and I have made a R1742 binding agreement, the text of
> which is:
> [...]
I had that idea just a few minutes ago. :(
pgpU9Ry2dM1mW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 6:32 pm, Ed Murphy wrote:
> To point out the potential problem more explicitly:
>
> If CFJ 1668 is judged true, then Primo-the-player ceased to exist when
> comex became a Shareholder. I strongly urge that we install a natural
> person as Clerk of the C
On 5/16/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
R889 says
"The Clerk of the Courts ... is an office", but in most other rules
"the Clerk of the Courts" is a player with certain obligations.
At least R1006:
The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the
office.
On Saturday 19 May 2007 11:42 am, Zefram wrote:
> Players are prohibited from making false statements in any public
> message.
This could make it much harder to dismiss a CFJ for being not relevant to the
rules.
pgpn281lRWgpt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 5/21/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
comex, what do you make of the present CFJ situation?
There are three ways to resolve it that I can see:
1. No matter what passed or didn't pass, as long as some players
announce that they become sitting down I can publish a Notice
On Monday 21 May 2007 8:00 pm, comex wrote:
> ineligibility depends on
> having been turned at the time the CFJ was called.
Actually, I realize this opens another option: a new player was not turned at
the time, and so is certainly eligible. Therefore, a new player (a
partnershi
On 5/22/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[The long-term inactive players have been screwing up CFJ assignment.
How so? R698 only says "Each active player is eligible to judge..."
On 5/22/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Trial judge selection is at the discretion of the CotC, but
Justice selection is random. I have never knowingly cheated on
a random determination in this game (or for that matter, knowingly
cheated or lied in the fora, saving in a game of Mafia
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 7:00 pm, Zefram wrote:
> Murphy didn't pseudo-judge CFJ 1668
Actually, e did. It was just hiding in the arguments.
> I interpret the status of a partnership in the face of changes to the
> agreement's membership (and/or text, for that matter) as covered by
> Rule 1586 (De
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 7:07 pm, Zefram wrote:
> I'm not sure that it should, but the rules definitely have an opinion
> on it. I'd be quite happy to generalise personhood much more widely so
> that the issue wouldn't arise. B Nomic's rule on this is a great model:
> it explicitly allows any "ex
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 9:18 pm, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Apart from B Nomic which has already been mentioned, I am participating
> in two to three others that would be good candidates.
Care to link?
pgpPGznFQrGRS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
UPDATE RULE 106
SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
WHERE TEXT = 'document';
COMMIT TRANSACTION;
Query OK, 0 rules affected (0.00 sec)
Rules matched: 0 Changed: 0 Warnings: 0
Anyway... I meant to say that I don't know what rule 106 you're talking
about.
pgpgRQrJDrLWo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday 27 May 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On behalf of Primo Corp:
>
> Primo Corp volunteers
But does the charter give you permission to do that?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On 5/31/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unaffected by the "turned when it was called" bug, which only
disqualifies players from being a Trial Judge.
I believe it is affected: (R911)
A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is
true:
...
iv) E is inelig
On Thursday 07 June 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
> >CotC is a fairly busy office. This splits it up a bit - not all that
> >much
>
> Not enough, I think. By volume, Civil CFJs (a misnomer, btw: it's
> distinctly a criminal procedure, whereas General CFJs are civil in
> nature) and Appea
proto-proposal: B Agreement
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 2147 by adding at the end
Protectorates are permitted to register. Any player may, with three
supporters, cause a Protectorate to be deregistered or, with one
supporter, cause a Protectorate to register, provided that no other
rule re
On Monday 18 June 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Doesn't play nicely with Limited Partnerships, Take Fifteen, unless
> the Protectorate also happens to be a Partnership (in which case it
> allegedly can register anyway) -- both because it's not a Partnership
> itself and because it screws up the recursiv
On Tuesday 19 June 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Zefram wrote:
> > comex wrote:
> > > I issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ 1684
> > > ASAP (per R408).
> >
> > I also issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ
> >
On Tuesday 19 June 2007, bd_ wrote:
> 13. There is no clause 13. Any player claiming or implying otherwise on
> a public forum shall receive the property "Unbeliever".
FYI: "Unbeliever" is currently defined another way in the B Nomic Ruleset,
although not as a property.
signature.asc
Descrip
On 6/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
comex wrote:
>I submit the following proposal:
No title.
Does it have to have one?
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Again, that may be the interest of the majority of the players, but
> the players are not the game.
Are you sure about that :)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> * Abuse VCs. A player who controls a partnership can use the
> partnership's VCs to raise eir own voting limit, and eir own VCs to
> raise the partnership's voting limit, at a cost of 1 VC per vote. A
> player outside of a partnership must resort to a
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Zefram wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >I hereby deregister Human Point Two via R869.
>
> Are you claiming that HP2 has lost person status by a change of
> partners? If not, if partnerships don't (and didn't) qualify as persons
> then HP2 was ne
On Tuesday 19 June 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
>such player, the Speaker) SHALL assign an ID number to it by
...
>announcement as soon as possible; such an assignment is INVALID
I do fervently hope "Mother, May I?" fails. Unfortunately it does not seem
that it will. My objection is n
On Friday 22 June 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > The following issues are also pending:
> >
> > * HP2's judgement of CFJ 1647
> > * comex's judgement of CFJ 1611
> > * Assignment of CFJs 1688-94
>
> Also, assignment of a Board of Appeals to CFJ 1684.
I would prefer not to do this until the CotC
And now it's down again. By the way, any luck with the signal
booster? I've had nothing but pain with them.
On 6/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At some point, a router setting on this end got mangled. (May have been
when I was configuring a signal booster yesterday.) Anyway, fix
On 6/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And now it's up again.
It's still intermittently going down, unfortunately.
On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> On 6/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> CFJ 1677 is hereby assigned to the Pineapple Partnership.
>
> The Pineapple Partnership is not a player, as per CFJ 1684, so it
> can't judge CFJs
On Monday 09 July 2007, Zefram wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >I hereby announce that my nickname is Murphy.
>
> Well, it's not. Your nickname is still "comex". The meaning of the
> nickname "Murphy" can't be changed by such an announcement.
&g
On Monday 09 July 2007, Zefram wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > A player may perform a dependent action by announcement if and
>
> "CAN".
>
> -zefram
CAN and MAY (as opposed to CANNOT and MAY NOT) aren't defined, except for.
4. CAN X ONLY IF Y: Equivalent to "CANNOT X unless Y".
On Thursday 05 July 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
> > This is just popped into my head, and I thought I would write it out
> > for comments. Essentially, this broadens current offices by converting
> > them into 3-person committees. By doing so, it provides redundancy to
> > official dutie
P.S. Why isn't Primo judging its cases, anyway?
On 7/10/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I object. I intend, without 2 objections, to change Zefram to lying
down. I intend, without objection, to make Zefram inactive.
On 7/10/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As
Are these conditional announcements valid?
On 7/12/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I haven't already done so, then I assign Human Point Two, Murphy,
> and Wooble to the appeal of CFJ 1651. (This is effective if
> partne
On Saturday 14 July 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I cause Human Point Two to publish the following.
You could try to ratify this, by the way.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Saturday 14 July 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
> > I spend 2 VCs to increase my voting limit on ordinary proposals by 1.
> > I vote AGAINST *8
>
> The eighth vote will be invalid.
Why?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Friday 27 July 2007, comex wrote:
> On Friday 27 July 2007, Antonio Dolcetta wrote:
> > I was wandering if anyone is interested in creating a faction.
> > Since the faction rules have been introduced no one has made one, Is
> > there any interest at all in
On Monday 23 July 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
> > I believe my votes on these proposals were submitted within the voting
> > period to the proper forum and were not counted.
>
> Correct. Those votes were as follows:
>
>5080 5081 5082 5083 5084 5085 5086 5087
>
Proto: caps lock
(AI=2, disinterested)
AMEND RULE 2152 BY CHANGING ALL WORDS IN ALL CAPS TO THEIR NORMAL ENGLISH
CAPITALIZATION, THEN AMEND EVERY OTHER RULE BY CHANGING THOSE WORDS IN THE
SAME WAY.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wednesday 01 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I intend to cause IADoP Human Point Two to intend (with eir consent
> and Agoran consent) to install comex as Scorekeepor.
This is not a very descriptive subject line.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wednesday 01 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote
> Neither CAN nor MAY is explicitly defined by Rule 2152, so ordinary
> language applies. Game custom for both is (not CANNOT) and (not
> MAY NOT).
This is severely broken. Certainly MAY/CAN are not capitalized merely for
emphasis.
signature.asc
De
On Thursday 02 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> proto-proposal: clarify Mother, May I?
> AI: 2
>
This does not fix CAN-allowing-action vs. MAY-allowing-action.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Thursday 02 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >This does not fix CAN-allowing-action vs. MAY-allowing-action.
>
> Both terms are perfectly well defined. "CAN" is used in several places
> to make something possible where it would otherwise be impossible.
&
On Friday 03 August 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I appeal the ruling in CFJ 1714 on the grounds that the Judge
> apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "if", the
> concept of stipulating certain conditions, and perhaps formal logic in
> general.
signature.asc
Description: This
On Friday 03 August 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I also appeal CFJ 1714 on the same grounds.
You can't directly anymore; you have to support my intention to appeal it
(and so does Wooble).
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Saturday 04 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> I hereby recuse root from CFJ 1709. I hereby assign comex as judge of
> CFJ 1709.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1709
>
Proto-judgement:
Considering the statement:
> Statement: rule 1742'
On Sunday 05 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Generally, please expand your argument considerably. At the moment
> it reads rather like Quazie's arguments in CFJ 1651 which led to it
> being appealed.
>
> -zefram
The amount of text deleted from the judgement is far greater than the
amount that was s
On Monday 06 August 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I assumed this was an equivocation on the meaning of "regularity",
> asserting that your messages to the public forums as a Player were not
> made with great frequency, having a space of years in between them.
>
> Either way, 754 doesn't require you
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> I hereby submit the following AI=2 proposal, titled "clarify Mother,
> May I?":
>
> {{{
>
> Amend rule 2152 to read
>
> The following terms are defined for the discussion of the status
> of events. The key words are spelled in all capitals. W
Amend rule 2152 to read
Within the rules, terms related to permissibility such as 'may',
'must', 'can', 'should', etc. have their ordinary language
meaning except that:
* The recommendation of action or inaction by the Rules
never constitutes a requirement
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> R2161 is flawed in that it
> does not discuss possibility, but is not actually broken. My proposed
> amendment of MMI doesn't change this.
Yes, it does. The current MMI does not define SHALL, so its ordinary
language meaning applies. With your clarifi
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> No, game custom is that possibility and requirement are independent.
> This passage just solidifies that into a rule. With regard to R2161,
> the rule says nothing about possibility, and so by the proposed R2152
> as well as game custom, it implies not
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Eek, you're going to have "can" canonically refer to permissibility
> rather than possibility? And "should" for permissibility instead of
> recommendation? What are your unambiguous terms going to be?
That merely selected terms to address. Perhaps "ter
On Wednesday 08 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> After a proposal with an adoption index of at least 3 passes,
> the toastmaster CAN initiate a toast to Agora, and SHALL do so
> as soon as possible with a bag on eir shoulder.
That wording is more concise, and perhaps in this case the
On Wednesday 08 August 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On 8/8/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 8/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Proposal: Support Ordinary
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 2142 by adding the paragraph:
> > > Any player may cause a Democratic proposal with a
I'm not sure if my message with subject 'map' actually initiated an Agoran
decision, but I would appreciate support and/or objection. The message
read as follows:
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to politely ask the rulekeepor to move
> the map to the beginning of the FLR.
signature.asc
Descr
On Sunday 12 August 2007, Pavitra wrote:
> I'm sure this has been discussed to death before, but in the absence
> of a proper search tool for the archives, I'd rather risk the flames.
You can download the full mbox for each of the three lists, import the
files into your mail client of choice, and
On Monday 13 August 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On 8/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >public message. Each public message is considered to be sent
> >by the person it identifies as its sender, unless an inquiry
> >case pertaining to the truth of this identificati
Amend the rule titled "Truthiness, or the Island of
Knights and Knaves" by replacing the entire text of the rule with:
Knight and Knave are player switches with values NAY and YAY,
tracked by the Speaker, with default values of YAY and NAY,
respectively.
A knight SHAL
On Monday 13 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Eww.
I couldn't think of a better way to allow a player to be a Knight and a
Knave at the same time.
> Ooh, tricky. Does "6000 FOR" count as a statement?
I don't see how this modification makes the issue (which could be CFJed)
any *more* relevant.
On Monday 13 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> No, it isn't. S/(S+O) = 0/(0+0) = 0/0 = 0 (Rule 2146), which
> is <= 1/2 (Rule 2124), so the OSbA is REJECTED (Rule 955).
You're right. Therefore, my notice resolving the decision was invalid, so
the decision is still active. Would you like to vote
On 8/14/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby agree to be bound by the following agreement:
This contract does not exist until someone else agrees to it, correct?
>
> d) 1 point to a contestant who was an officer all week.
> e) 1 point to a contestant who was not an of
On Wednesday 15 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Actually it would just make things worse when we discovered after the
> fact that e had been deregistered some time ago. If the ruling had gone
> that way, we could probably have traced you through the IP address in
> Peekee's web server log.
This would
On Wednesday 15 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >Rule 869 specifies that "to register" and "to become a player" are
> >synonymous.
>
> Not as I read it. Murphy messed it up a bit in eir switchification,
> so that it's nonsensical
On Wednesday 15 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >proposal: fix registration definitions (again)
> >AI: 1
>
> This appears to be accurately quoting an existing proposal. Per CFJ
> 1647, it does not constitute submission of a new proposal. (If you
> in
While the CotC database is performing perfectly at the moment, there are
often times when it is not. So I've set up a quick little mirror for
viewing old CFJs at:
http://cfj.qoid.us/ (where is CFJ number)
Or the stare decisis at:
http://cfj.qoid.us
Updated every 24 hours. Linkified
On Thursday 16 August 2007, Pavitra wrote:
> > 3) While we're at it, I think we should forbid inactive players from
> > performing dependent actions in general.
> None whatsoever. I agree with 3) as well.
But it's just this kind of loophole that could potentially lead to a
magnificent scam.
sign
On 8/18/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (a) The action CANNOT be performed, or CAN be performed
> ONLY IF certain conditions are satisfied.
>
> (b) The action MAY NOT be performed, or MAY be performed
> ONLY IF certain conditions are satisfied.
On 8/20/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/18/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (a) The action CANNOT be performed, or CAN be performed
> > ONLY IF certain conditions are satisfied.
> >
> > (b) The action MA
On 8/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's strictly on the merits. With 5159 I nearly voted PRESENT, but
> I'm worried that it's a scam setup. I had a nightmare two nights ago
> that involved a R2134 win being sprung, which is probably related.)
You're correct in that the purpose of
On 8/21/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Much the same can be done under the current system: conspirators can
> spend VCs to raise the target's VLOP; the target can spend VCs to raise
> someone else's VLOP, preferably someone inactive or like-minded.
With VLOP increases being more expen
On 8/21/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm creating a new rule category "Rules", and moving rules 2141 ("Role and
> Attributes of Rules"), 217 ("Interpreting the Rules"), 1482 ("Precedence
> between Rules with Unequal Power"), 1030 ("Precedence between Rules
> with Equal Power"), 105 ("Rul
On 8/21/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Registrar's report SHOULD include the following:
!?
SHALL
On 8/21/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>4. MAY, CAN: The described action is permitted but a failure to perform
in before Zefram's reply
On 8/24/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zefram wrote:
>
> > proto-proposal: allow non-player wins
>
> Create a rule titled "Non-Player Wins" with this text:
>
>When a non-player wins the game, e becomes a player.
>
Upon the adoption of this proposal, Rule 2029 becomes a player.
On 8/25/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Boring. We've had bribery before, more than once. Waggie did it with
> greater style.
But not with VCs. Aside from the Walrus Scam, which is documented,
I'm sure this has been attempted tens of times, but this may be a
little different, as the rew
On 8/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Therefore, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM on the appeal
> of CFJ 1711.
>
I also intend to cause the panel to register.
The appellant states that
In the present case, Murphy's second message applies a
correction in the form of an additional set of votes to insert
into the prior message; it is clear how adding these votes
affects the totals, so I see no need for the revised totals to
be
On 8/28/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to cause the panel to recuse itself.
I support this, and note that you haven't responded to the email I sent you.
Proto-Proposal: Neigh
AI: 3
[To be proposed if CFJ 1738 is judged TRUE. Removes a person's rights, whee!]
Amend Rule 101 by removing item vi., and renumbering accordingly.
Amend Rule 478 by removing the paragraph:
Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
any no
On 8/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Prohibiting a player from posting true
> statements thus denies em the right to take many game actions, which is
> a major aspect of participation in the public forum.
Gratuitous arguments:
The last paragraph of 2149:
Merely quoting a statement
On 8/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A "TTttPF" means that the main body is not a "mere quote". It
> incorporates the quoted text into the primary context of the message,
> where it is very much relevant to R2149.
But it is still a quote.
On 8/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >[To be proposed if CFJ 1738 is judged TRUE.
>
> Were you aware of the rights issue when making P5147? If you didn't
> expect KNAVE status to conflict with R101, what about FOOL status which
> leaves
On 8/29/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I retract this vote and vote AGAINST x 11 on P5190.
> I retract this vote and vote FOR on P5195.
If I didn't have a complete lack of VCs, I could bribe people too.
On 8/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is also why any attempt to define statements like "I vote
> 1000 times" as perjury are logically flawed, even if such
> attempted actions are made with reckless disregard for whether
> they are possible.
I disagree.
I vote FOR.
I am voting
On 8/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I vote OBJECT.
This is getting old.
On 8/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You confuse cause and effect. The game doesn't make the statement itself
> "true", the statement makes the game condition true, if the game allows.
True. Right now,
I vote FOR
is a statement I believe is false. However, if this is a message
On 8/29/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No points may be awarded by the contestmaster of a contest that is
> declared a Shenanigan.
Ever?
What if they've already won?
>Any player MAY delcare a Contest a Shenanigan With 1 Agoran Consent.
With 1 Agoran Consent is
On 8/30/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>however, if the rules otherwise permit a knave to perform an
>action by announcement, then the knave is considered to /feel/
>the announcement to be true, and this rule prohibits neither
>the announcement nor the acti
On 8/30/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would find such a filter to be incredibly annoying.
Personally I would most prefer an overturning of CFJ 1738. The knave
would then have to balance the explicit exemptions at the end of 2149
with the requirement to post something true in order
On 8/30/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and we do not get the effects of these announcements confused.
Except when people are registering :)
1 - 100 of 1481 matches
Mail list logo
