pikhq wrote:
On Sunday 16 December 2007 01:31:59 Ed Murphy wrote:
Welcome to Eris's 17-digit monstrosities.
That's an issue in the Agoran ID number rule, isn't it? ;)
The Agoran rule limits them to 14-digit monstrosities, and allows them
to be declared as chaotic so
comex wrote:
How does having one person hold all three offices solve or otherwise avoid
the problem?
What's relevant is not that the holders are the same, but that the
holders are naturally inclined to fulfill eir regular publishing duties
using systematic and unambiguous formats. Compare thi
pikhq wrote:
See B Nomic in emergency. Now *that's* overwhelming.
Someone familiar with more nomics (BobTHJ?) might be able to get a
thesis out of this. It was pointed out that Agoran culture tends
toward creating single test cases with minimal knock-on results,
while B culture tends toward w
Goethe wrote:
I have the following in mind, before I go further, reactions? Enough
interest?
Proto-proto: Parliament
Worth a shot.
root wrote:
The downside is that it would make win by voting
power more complicated, not less.
Proto-generalization:
Upon a correct announcement that a player has Excessive Clout,
that player wins the game.
A player has Excessive Clout if and only if a proposal with
Goethe wrote:
Making it illegal but possible, with the only punishment being
exile for the partnership (rather than punishment for members of the
basis) means that I can register a partnership, vote with it, etc.,
and the worst that happens if I'm found out is that my partnership
goes away (but
Eris wrote:
On 12/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5374 D1 2Goddess Er Flexible VLOP options
FOR
NttPF, and on your own proposal yet.
pikhq wrote:
WALRUS registers.
Is this anything to do with
http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/WalrusScam
?
Buddha Buck wrote:
If I wanted the obligations of playing this Nomic, I'd send a message
saying "I register as a player in Agora under the name Blaise Pascal"
to a different forum.
Most obligations to act in Agora are voluntary. They fall into the
following broad categories:
* Duties of an
Zefram wrote:
APPROX DATE (UTC) CASE SUBJECTAWD EVENT
[snip]
> 02 Dec 2007 23:39:06 1818 pikhq +1b call for judgement
This didn't happen, due to 2176 (+b)'s "except as noted below" clause.
> 05 Dec 2007 16:15:56 1812 BobTHJ -1B judgement overturned
> 05 Dec 2007 17:47
pikhq wrote:
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 13:38:42 comex wrote:
The AFO and I create the following contract:
{{
1. This is a contract governed by the rules of Agora. Its parties are the
AFO and comex. Its set of parties CANNOT be changed.
Invalid partnership. You're part of the basis of
pikhq wrote:
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 15:54:10 Zefram wrote:
I hereby assign pikhq as judge of CFJ 1836.
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1836
== CFJ 1836 ==
Type: inquir
pikhq wrote:
If WALRUS was not a player before this message, it submits the CFJs that it
would have submitted if it were a player before this message.
Since I have to track whether this series of alleged actions created any
Blue Marks, I interpret matters as follows, pending clear and convinci
Zefram wrote:
If WALRUS is a person, and was a person at the time that you originally
attempted to register it, then it was capable of submitting CFJs then.
It failed only because you failed to make a suitable announcement.
I agree with pikhq that, in context, WALRUS clearly referred to a
part
I wrote:
I agree with pikhq that, in context, WALRUS clearly referred to a
partnership with then-undisclosed basis.
Actually, I think this was comex's argument. Blah. Things get
rough when the message backlog gets this large and complex.
Anyway, the CotC DB is caught up now (except for a co
root wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 11:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
T1 = first time at which pikhq claimed to register WALRUS
T2 = second time at which pikhq claimed to register WALRUS
Based on information known to pikhq at the time, and without resorting
to retroactivity, WALR
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
02 Dec 2007 23:39:06 1818 pikhq +1b call for judgement
This didn't happen, due to 2176 (+b)'s "except as noted below" clause.
There is no note below about not gaining blue marks. There's a note
about *losing* blue marks whe
Zefram wrote:
pikhq made an unsuitable announcement out of ineptness, I don't think
it was deliberate. E mistakenly made a public message that relied on
a term that was only defined privately.
T1 was several hours after comex's Spartacus attempts. Had it occurred
before those attempts, one c
comex wrote:
On 12/20/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As stated above, I find that all of these points conflict with the
best interests of the game, and so I think it important to deviate
from the set interpretation. In contrast, a rational number
interpretation results in no such pro
Wooble wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 7:56 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of Goethe, root, and Wooble as judge
of CFJ 1836a.
With the consent of Goethe and root, I intend to have the panel judge
REMAND with instructions to consider the effects of the ratifica
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
(+b) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark,
*except as noted below*.
There is no provision below that says "If XXX then e does not gain the
usual Blue Mark for calling for judgement.".
(-b) When a person
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I interpret (+b)'s "except as noted below" as "except when a person
calls for judgement within the narrower circumstances noted below".
No doubt that's what was intended, but it's not what it says.
I think my interpretat
Zefram wrote:
20 Dec 2007 00:38:57 1839 pikhq +1b call for judgement
20 Dec 2007 00:38:57 1840 pikhq +1b call for judgement
I had missed these.
The other differences in our records depend on which CFJs comex
called (CFJs 1833 and 1835), which CFJs WALRUS called (CFJ 1840),
and
OscarMeyr wrote:
(Murphy owes the Oracle four pieces of fluff and any hand tool.)
Would you settle for three pints and a sandwich?
comex wrote:
On 12/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The argument against blue mark awards for excess CFJing rests on the
interpretation that section (-b), by mentioning a circumstance that is
a subset of the trigger for (+b), implicitly "notes" that (+b)'s award
does not occur in that m
Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
b) comex referred to R2149 in eir arguments, and presented no other
rule in the message as provided to this CFJ. I consider this to
adequately identify the rule in question (although not as clearly as
I might prefer). PASS
Rule 1504 says that the
Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
However, such a clause would not need the except bit in the first place,
The except bit would avoid a conflict between the two clauses.
Has there ever been much in the way of explicit legislation on the
topic of rules conflicting with themselves? Informally, I th
pikhq wrote:
If I have one white, one blue, and one violet mark,
You have neither a white nor a violet mark.
> I spend them to increase my VVLOP by one.
This would fail regardless.
Goethe wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
To be fair, I was not certain that Agora would accept Fookiemyartug's
retroactivity mumbo-jumbo, hence my reason for stating that it was a
test. I did however search the ruleset first to see if there was any
clear conflict with my actions. I
pikhq wrote:
On Thursday 20 December 2007 22:37:29 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 9:53 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I create 100 points in my posession, as allowed by rule 2166/1.
I win the game.
Marks also have this loophole. Possibly VCs as well; changes to VCs
are sec
BobTHJ wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 11:28 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Irrelevant; the resolution need only include the valid votes on it. Inclusion
of votes which were believed to be valid but aren't actually valid does not
violate the requirements set by rule 208 (nor does any in
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Levi 110 10 1B
...
Gray LeviAFO, Big Brother,
These are inconsistent.
Fixed in next draft.
Thu 20 Dec 07:46:26 Telescope registers
What is Telescope? I found the most natural
root wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 5:31 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. This is a binding agreement governed by the Rules of Agora.
Parties to this agreement are known as Partners.
2. The Partners shall jointly act as a partnership, in a manner
governed by this agreement. The ability of
comex wrote:
On Dec 21, 2007 9:07 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And have since destroyed it.
I seriously just thought that a report without any points seemed bare. That's
all there is to it. I had no idea that people would be this damned offended
by it.
THIS
IS
AGORA
The
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Then again, e previously used the same scam writ large to effectively
gain 3 VCs and wipe out all other points, and no one attempted to sack
em in response to that.
That was a legitimate scam. Now that e's got eir win, further use of
the same loophole i
comex wrote:
On Dec 21, 2007 9:42 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I solemnely swear on my offices & patent titles not to further use a scam.
I note that it's a *single point*. Argument over a single point is Less Fun
Than Not Fun.
I think you might have a point.
Anyone feel like creating some? I'd play in a Catan variant if
someone started one.
(http://www.aworldlikemyown.com/index.php?comic=180)
comex wrote:
On Dec 22, 2007 12:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
An announcement claiming that such an import has occurred is
self-ratifying.
I don't think you get around to specifying that it must be imported by
announcement.
True, though the Ambassad
avpx wrote:
Any player may spend N pesos to cause another player to gain .75*N
pesos. However, if one of the parties in the transaction is the
Treasury, then N pesos may be spent by one party to cause the other
party to gain N pesos.
"I spend 500 of the Treasury's pesos to cause myself to gain
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
[Rather than limit the minting of currency, simply devalue it. This
is both simpler and more realistic.]
Been done before, and it was horrendous. Making currency units decay
(as we now have them do) involves a lot less paperwork.
When was this? Were the
Goethe wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement (criminal case): comex has violated
Rule 2149 in his communication of voting on proposal 5375.
Arguments: comex has stated specifically in the past that e does not
believe that e has huge numbers of ordinary votes, nor would any reasonable
person
Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
H. Assessor Murphy properly reported the votes on Prop.
5373, but inadvertently omitted the specification of the outcome as
required by R208 item (c). I therefore (draft)judge FALSE.
That's the logic that I used. The question is whether,
Goethe wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
2) 1048576 is such a huge number in context that it could be interpreted
as an implicit "most of these will be invalid" disclaimer. (A player
who intentionally casts just a few more votes than eir voting limit
would be more
avpx wrote:
The recordkeepor of pesos is the Treasuror. E is the only person who
can manage the holdings of the Treasury, and yes, e can cause the
Treasury to give pesos to someone.
[snip]
Murphy, I don't see why you could cause yourself to spend the
Treasury's pesos. Only the Treasuror can ha
avpx wrote:
One of the reasons I wanted to make it rule-regulated, BTW, was so
that it could possibly replace the system of VCs and marks, which,
personally, I find a little messy. It might be a good idea, if we can
all agree on that (which I doubt we can), to re-engineer the whole
idea, and add
The rules used to define certain actions as either Crimes (matters of
law, requiring CFJ) and Infractions (matters of fact, requiring a simple
claim-of-error-style announcement, generally less serious), each with a
specified penalty. Rule violations not otherwise defined as one of
these things we
avpx wrote:
Also, I intend for pesos to be spent similar to VCs, in that one can
increase his own VVLOP and others' as well. In fact, the biggest
difference in terms of this is that they can be transfered.
I've also some ideas for what they could be spent on. Namely, they
could be used similarl
Ed Murphy wrote:
avpx wrote:
Also, I intend for pesos to be spent similar to VCs, in that one can
increase his own VVLOP and others' as well. In fact, the biggest
difference in terms of this is that they can be transfered.
I've also some ideas for what they could be spent on. Na
OscarMeyr wrote:
b) comex referred to R2149 in eir arguments, and presented no other
rule in the message as provided to this CFJ. A statement in the CFJ
argument is not a clear designation in the CFJ statement proper of the
rule allegedly breached. FAIL
Criminal cases don't have statement
OscarMeyr wrote:
We do need a patch in 2126, along the lines of replacing:
VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the
color is specified):
With:
VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the
color(s) is/are accurately specified an
pikhq wrote:
Common sense dictates that, when you spend something, you have also lost it.
The rules do not say otherwise, so common sense prevails.
This whole case is centered around whether or not "to spend" is sufficiently
similar to "to lose" to allow the VC loss to be waived.
I invite the
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Sun 23 Dec 00:40:15 Zefram -3R increase root's VVLOP by 6
Sun 23 Dec 00:40:15 Zefram -3R increase Goethe's VVLOP by 6
I increased root's VVLOP by 8 and Goethe's by 4.
Corrected in next draft.
Proto-Proposal: Synaesthesia
(AI = 2, II = 2, please)
Change the title of Rule 2126 to "Ribbons", and amend it to read:
Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. Changes to Ribbon holdings
are secured. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.
Each Ribbon has exactly one co
I wrote:
Create a rule titled "Rests" with Power 2 and this text:
Rests are a fixed currency. Ownership of Rests is restricted
to players.
Whenever a player possesses a Rest, the Conductor CAN destroy
it and award a Note of random pitch to that player, and SHALL
Eris wrote:
On 12/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(A#) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an A# Note.
This is usually written Bb, not A#.
Yes, but A# fits the alphabetic correlation (inspired by Nomicron's
Runes) between the pitches and the events awarding them.
Eris wrote:
On 12/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eris wrote:
On 12/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(A#) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an A# Note.
This is usually written Bb, not A#.
Yes, but A# fits the alphabetic correlation (inspire
I wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Synaesthesia
(F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.
(F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.
(A#) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an A# Note.
(A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.
Oh, I have a better idea - cha
pikhq wrote:
Tue 25 Dec 02:52:40 Murphy -1k transfer to pikhq
Tue 25 Dec 02:52:40 pikhq -1k transfer from Murphy
*Excuse* me? WTF?
Typo. Fixed in next draft.
pikhq wrote:
On Monday 24 December 2007 21:40:32 Ed Murphy wrote:
Assessor's Voting Limits and Voting Credits Report
Accountor's Marks Report
[snip]
Murphy's VLOP is disputed (CFJ 1850).
Your *win* is disputed, not your VLOP. Since you announced that your EVLOP was
highe
pikhq wrote:
From playing B Nomic, I've seen one potentially useful idea: transactions. I'm
not sure if everyone wants them, but let's see:
Proto: Transactions (power=3?)
Create a rule titled "Transactions" with the following text:
A transaction is a method of announcing actions, contained ent
root wrote:
On Dec 22, 2007 8:44 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I cause the AFO to publish the following.
Perhaps I'm misremembering, but didn't a recent proposal cause Murphy
to become Assessor?
Yes, but the AFO remains vote collector for anything distribu
pikhq wrote:
On Monday 31 December 2007 11:08:56 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Dec 31, 2007 11:04 AM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps: "An announcement may be made asserting the success or failure of
a
Transaction. This announcement is self-ratifying."?
We'd have to remember to ma
Eris wrote:
On 12/31/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Dec 25, 2007 6:27 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With agreement, I would like to have the panel judge REASSIGN. I think
a fresh look on this would be valuable
I agree to this.
I'll do it after the Holiday to avoid giving
root wrote:
On Dec 31, 2007 12:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, overlooking the failure of an attempted registration during an
Emergency Session could happen just as easily without transactions.
Without the transaction, the registration in my example would hav
pikhq wrote:
What a waste. . . VVLOPs are almost inevitably going to be reset in a bit as
it stands.
Only if CFJ 1850 is judged TRUE.
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
All AGAINST votes in this message are cast only on the condition that
the proposal in question would meet quorum even if I didn't vote on it.
Interesting. Technically, this isn't known "within" the voting period
but
pikhq wrote:
On Monday 31 December 2007 15:28:22 Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Dec 31, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Josiah Worcester wrote:
I intend, with 2 Senate supporters, to call an Emergency Session.
The topic?
Developing tensions with B Nomic.
Other than B thinking we surrendered, what tensions
Goethe wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
All AGAINST votes in this message are cast only on the condition that
the proposal in question would meet quorum even if I didn't vote on it.
Interesting. Technically, this isn&#x
Goethe wrote:
No, extending the voting period for these is the whole purpose of holidays.
The "If some Rule bases" paragraph clearly doesn't apply to
these. The "If some Rule requires" paragraph might, though.
2006-07: 4877-92 started after the holiday, 4874-75 ended
before. Zefram's propo
April 1 was a holiday through 2006.
2006: 4851-54 ended before, 4855 started before and intersected,
4856-59 started after.
2005: 4654-62 ended before, 4663-70 and 4671-73 started before
and intersected, 4674-75 started after.
2004: 4557-62 ended before, 4563-65 started before and intersecte
Iammars wrote:
So far, I know that I need to affirm CFJ 1828a, Judge
on CFJ 1844 and CFJ 1839, Vote on a lot of proposals, and come to a
conclusion on the panel of CFJ 1831b, and I'm a little over halfway
through. My question is, since we're on holiday, when is the first time
I can legally po
pikhq wrote:
I Call for Judgement on the following: Dependent actions with fewer than
Quorum voters have not been made since clause (a) of rule 955 was made to
have its current text, except for the self-ratification of the voting
results.
Evidence:
(a) If there is more than one availabl
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Has the AFO become public? I've lost track.
[Feel free to inform me if the following was somehow against the AFO
contract at the time or not with consent. -Goethe]
From: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org (Josiah Worcester)
Date: We
pikhq wrote:
I create the following location:
Over There
1) Elephants may move to this location.
2) Elephants may leave this location.
This isn't a public contract, either.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
It's not against the AFO contract, which allows any partner to control
the partnership itself without prior consultation. The interesting
question is whether the contract rules recognize this;
It doesn't qualify as any of the formulations of rule
Goethe wrote:
I submit the following proposal, "No silent partners", AI-2. -Goethe
No Silent Partners
Amend Rule 2145 by replacing:
A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains
at least
Eris wrote:
On 1/2/08, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I CFJ on the following: There are elephants Over There.
Something tells me you made all that machinery just so you could do this. :D
Blame root for locations. And blame Goethe for CFJ 1629.
What interpreter/debugger are the other contestants using? I've been
using http://www.iamcal.com/misc/bf_debug/ but it's rather slow. I also
found http://esoteric.voxelperfect.net/wiki/Brainfuck#Implementations
but I can't be arsed to test all of them individually.
root wrote:
On Jan 7, 2008 9:33 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy, root, and Zefram as judge
of CFJ 1836b.
I intend, with the agreement of my fellow panelists, to cause the
panel to judge AFFIRM in this case with the following concurring
opinio
Goethe wrote:
The issue of cron jobs is where Judge Zefram and I differ, and I'm
considering both those judgments and my own initial thoughts carefully.
Since Zefram uses cron jobs, I assume e considers them legally
effective. Does that mean that you don't? Or is the distinction
on some more
comex wrote:
Also, we might (maybe?) need to violate the R101/478 right of
participation in a PoA. A PoA that authorizes anyone to act on behalf
of Player X by voting or retracting votes is certainly reasonable; but
does this mean that Player X can't reasonably vote on eir own behalf,
therefore
Zefram wrote:
APPROX DATE (UTC) CASE SUBJECTAWD EVENT
04 Dec 2007 20:01:00 1812 BobTHJ +1K sentence on time
07 Jan 2008 17:39:09 1850 root +1B judge on time
07 Jan 2008 19:31:11 1846 pikhq -1B judgement overturned
07 Jan 2008 21:01:47 1839 Iammars+1B judg
Zefram wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
I appeal this decision.
There were two appealable decisions there: verdict and sentence.
You must specify which one you are appealing.
I already entered the appeal into the database. On the assumption
that e'll initiate it with the proper specification, I'l
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I lost one for 1840 being reassigned.
Oh yes, I missed that.
OscarMeyr gained one for judging 1851;
No e didn't; e was late.
Ah, you're right, the holiday only delayed obligations to January 10
at 00:00 UTC. Draft report corrected.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Sat 22 Dec 04:29:53 pikhq awarded Champion; each player's VVLOP set to
BVLOP
Claim of error: as pikhq did not win, I believe e could not be validly
awarded the patent title of Champion, and therefore this VVLOP reset
did not occur.
Zefram wrote:
The report shows a reset of VVLOP due to an award of Champion, but that
award came from a non-win. It looks to me like the announcement of
the award was therefore INVALID, and so the VVLOP reset did not occur.
I haven't formulated this properly for a CFJ yet.
Rule 649, relevant
Zefram wrote:
(Disclaimer: I'm not convinced about the accuracy of the most recently
reported voting limits, so some of the following votes may well be
invalid due to VLOP.)
Explain please?
root wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled "As late as possible" (AI=2):
==
Amend Rule 1023 (Common Definitions) by replacing this text:
(a) The phrase "as soon as possible" means "within seven days".
with:
(a) The phrase "as soon as possible" means "within seve
root wrote:
On Jan 10, 2007 12:42 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I like the idea, but this highlights an abuse of the language that has
long been overlooked. I suggest "in a timely fashion before" and "in a
timely fashion against".
I meant to write "
pikhq wrote:
Object. I was awarded the patent title "Minister Without Profile" by proposal.
Unless CFJ 1859 is appealed and overturned. I suspect it won't be,
but I've been maintaining an unofficial Mark record just in case.
Goethe wrote:
Other thought: "Legal name" in an Agoran CFJ means must refer to "legal in
terms of Agora" and that means "Agoran name" which is necessarily unique
which is legally trivial and not the statement intent but it's what it says.
Objection, Your Honor. That sentence should be taken
root wrote:
By the way, the web archive shows that I initiated CFJ 1859; it was
actually comex. Zefram's case file appears to be correct, however.
Fixed, thanks for the catch.
comex wrote:
For the CotC election I intend to vote for and only for a candidate
who will maintain a database with a web interface (preferably *the*
database) emself. Currently we have, in effect, two redundant
databases (one of which is a set of text files), one maintained by
Murphy, one Zefra
pikhq wrote:
On Friday 11 January 2008 04:27:57 Zefram wrote:
I nominate myself for Clerk of the Courts. I consent to and support my
own nomination.
Why did you self-nominate? You'd just keep your CotC job, since he's been
objected to enough already. ;)
No, I hadn't been. At the time,
comex wrote:
- I will try to get stuff from Zefram's archives into the database.
(I don't know how flexible the database structure is, but...) CFJ
818*, for example, makes excellent reading, but it's too old to even
be in the current database's Stare Decisis.
I have offline files of CFJs 1-61
comex wrote:
It was relocated once before (from Eris's server to mine), but it
took a good bit of head-scratching. I could give you a shell account,
but then you'd be cut off whenever my server's net connection decided
to flake out for a while. (The cfj.qoid.us mirror is a good workaround
for
comex wrote:
This is a non-issue as far as I can see. If a player submits a CFJ
through a web interface, it doesn't actually exist in the gamestate
until the submission is posted on a public forum. So the interface
would in any case email business on eir behalf (CFJ 1719). That's
just to subm
comex wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 7:13 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why would automatic assignment be too difficult? Posture and activity
changes can easily be tracked manually, and if an occasional invalid
judge were to be assigned due to the manual changes not being updated
the judge
Iammars wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 7:56 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
I, for one, would rather wait for the CotC to do it right. The
judicial system is not the place to experiment with automatic
message generation.
This begs
comex wrote:
If such a thing were implemented, any confusion would only occur if
someone was delibrately trying to confuse it, i.e. "I de-register".
This probably wouldn't happen and if so, I'm sure the CotC would be
EXCUSED :)
Or all messages could be disclaimered with "if it is possible and
701 - 800 of 3637 matches
Mail list logo
