Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agora's Child II

[Zefram]

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
impossible to use as a serious forum.

I note that the messages that are visible on the website suffer from
deliberate corruption by the group software.  (It tries to obscure
anything that looks vaguely like an email address.)

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Change of VC laws

[Zefram]

>  * 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 "N to decrease another player's VVLOP by floor(N/2)"

This throws away all the benefit of mass spends of many colours.
There's no reason for using "N" any more if you make these changes;
you might as well simplify to

   * 2 to increase another player's VVLOP by 1
   * 3 to increase your own VVLOP by 1
   * 2 to decrease another player's VVLOP by 1

which is the way it used to be.

-zefram

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Delayed gratification

[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-awards arrangement for blue and black VCs.
I think it's right for game balance.

Otherwise I'm fine with these changes.

-zefram

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: White VCs for mentors

[Zefram]

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

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Marks for one-time VLOP

[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 limits can't be minimised on all copies.

-zefram

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: AC: Proposal redux

[Zefram]

Josiah Worcester wrote:
>Retract *that*, and submit this ("No decay", AI=2, II=2, co-author is avpx):

II=2 is not justified.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Lost :(

[Zefram]

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 Promotor and CotC duties.

-zefram

DIS: Re: BUS: AFO actions

[comex]

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.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-Thesis v2: 2007, the Year of the Partnership

[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 that
I had intended to create with you.  However, we never explicitly said
that we intended it to be governed by the rules of Agora, and we never
set out a formal contractual text.  It remains an open question whether
the present iteration of Agoran contract law is applicable in such a case.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Pseudo-judgement in CFJ 1800

[Zefram]

Ian Kelly wrote:
>Pseudo-judgement: CFJ 1800 <- TRUE

You are overdue to deliver real judgement in CFJ 1800.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1801: assign comex

[Zefram]

comex wrote:
>Pseudo-judgement: FALSE.

You are overdue to deliver real judgement in CFJ 1801.

-zefram

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: assign pikhq

[Zefram]

>==  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

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: assign pikhq

[Roger Hicks]

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 nonsensical, this should be an easy FALSE.
>
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.

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: assign pikhq

[Ian Kelly]

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
nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk"
is an action?  If it is, then what happens when I perform it?

-root

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: assign pikhq

[Roger Hicks]

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 you claim that "to
> nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk"
> is an action?  If it is, then what happens when I perform it?
>
> -root
>
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". Since nkep is not regulated by Agora, the answer is
unquestionably yes. Weather nkep is a performable action or not has no
bearing on it.

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: assign pikhq

[Zefram]

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?" tackles the
definition of nkep as an action.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agora's Child II

[Ian Kelly]

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
> concerned with the Google Groups website.  I've always found these groups
> impossible to use as a serious forum.
>
> I note that the messages that are visible on the website suffer from
> deliberate corruption by the group software.  (It tries to obscure
> anything that looks vaguely like an email address.)

The Google groups to which I am subscribed act as mailing lists with
some fancy web features that I never use (although I've found that the
web interface is handy for replying to a particular message when I'm
subscribed in digest mode).  The emails that they send out keep the
messages fully intact, without obscuring anything.  I've had similar
experiences with Yahoo groups.

Of course, I use my Gmail account to interact with them, but others
use non-Google email addresses, and I haven't heard of any problems
arising from that.

-root

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1786a: recuse, assign BobTHJ, Levi, OscarMeyr

[Roger Hicks]

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, so on
> >> first brush I want to reassign the case.  I'm interested in what my
> >> fellow Judges on the appeal panel have to say.
> >
> > I have not seen any discussion from the rest of the appeal panel.
> > Accordingly, I submit my position officially:
> >
> > With the agreement of my fellow appeal panelists in CFJ 1786a --
> > BobTHJ and Levi -- I intend to have the appeal panel rule REASSIGN, as
> > Goddess Eris's arguments in making her ruling did not address the case
> > at hand.
> Sorry, this one had slipped past me :)
>
> I agree to this judgement.
>
> Levi
>
>
I also consent to this judgment.

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: assign pikhq

[Ian Kelly]

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". Since nkep is not regulated by Agora, the answer is
> unquestionably yes. Weather nkep is a performable action or not has no
> bearing on it.

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" do not make "nkep" an object or an adverb.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: assign pikhq

[Roger Hicks]

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" do not make "nkep" an object or an adverb.
>
> -root
>
After re-reading R101, I see the language of the rule supports your
point of view. I hereby retire to my private study to read the ruleset
in shame.

BobTHJ

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-Thesis v2: 2007, the Year of the Partnership

[Kerim Aydin]

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 court has yet to try a valid
> case.  Agreements to enforce specific obligations presumably do arise,
> but are generally established in private and subsequently obeyed, thus
> do not require general disclosure; for instance, 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.

Nice improvement overall.  Back when Organizations and Agreements were
two different things (before my repeals), we used organizations to get
those extra powers.  At the time, agreements were made "with the intent
that they were binding under the rules of Agora."  I personally made many 
private deals ("If you give me a VC, I agree as binding by Agora to vote 
for X.")  At least a couple large-scale scams (the Fountain I think?) had
the conspirators sign such an agreement.  

None of these ever needed to be litigated: was this a function of the 
binding, or just a function of keeping our long-term reputations intact?
Dunno.  I suspect reputations: I'm sure the penalty of one blot wouldn't
have stopped someone from breaking an agreement (hence the idea of equity
was introduced).

The only litigation I remember was one where the intent to be bound by the
rules was unclear after a deregistration (lead member deregistered and
disappeared with obligations unfulfilled): that was the looting of the 
AgorEx assets: CFJ 1325.

My repeals weren't meant to confound the two things, I just got rid of
moribund organizations (and kept the idea of private agreements) on the
idea that someone would re-create contests and things someday with a full
set of organization rules when they were needed again, and in the mean
time we'd still want to make private deals.

The fact that we snuck in partnerships through the courts based on the
personhood of agreements means "organizations" with extra powers are now
entangled with private agreements; maybe the result of your thesis 
should be a proposal to disentangle.  Or, true to any thesis, add the
statement "this thesis will have a wide range of practical applications
in developing future agreement law" without actually developing a
practical application :).

-Goethe

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: assign pikhq

[Ian Kelly]

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 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?

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: Change of VC laws

[Ed Murphy]

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 at "Amend rule 2126 ..." then "avpx is a coauthor
..." is not part of the text and so is ineffective.  However, based on
precedent with the "I submit ..." formulation, I think the body starts at
"avpx is a coauthor ...", hence you didn't set the AI or II.


Coauthors must be "named in [the] proposal" (Rules 1681 and 2126),
but AI and II need only be requested "at the time of submission"
(Rules 106 and 2153).

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: assign pikhq

[comex]

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.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: assign pikhq

[Ian Kelly]

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?
> Ambiguous, but it's unquestionably a sentence about swinging.

Unless I left out a different word and am introducing myself as "swing
the mightily". :-)

-root

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: assign pikhq

[comex]

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"... :<

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: assign pikhq

[Ian Kelly]

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

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1783: recuse, assign OscarMeyr

[Josiah Worcester]

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:   criminal case
> 
> Defendant:  comex
> 
> Rule:   2149
> 
> Action: knowingly or recklessly claiming, while e was a knight, in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, that
> Fookiemyartug's personness was part of the CotC's weekly report
> 
> Initiator:  Zefram
> 
> 
> 
> Judge:  OscarMeyr
> 
> Culpability:applicable, GUILTY
> 
> Sentencing: applicable, open
> 
> 
> 
> History:
> 
> Initiated by Zefram:05 Nov 2007 10:24:05 GMT
> Defendant notified: 05 Nov 2007 10:27:19 GMT
> Judge pikhq assigned:   12 Nov 2007 15:39:52 GMT
> Verdict GUILTY by pikhq:16 Nov 2007 02:56:09 GMT
> Judge pikhq recused:(as of this message)
> Judge OscarMeyr assigned:   (as of this message)
> 
> 
> 
> Initiator's Arguments:
> 
> In the message cited, comex claimed that the statement "Fookiemyartug
> is a person." was part of the CotC's weekly report.  Regardless of
> whether Fookiemyartug is actually a person or not, that status is not
> specified to be part of the CotC's report by any rule.  comex's claim
> was therefore false.  E was presumably aware that the CotC does not
> generally report on personhood, having played for some time.
> 
> 
> 
> Initiator's Evidence:
> 
> The message in question:
> |Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> |From: comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> |To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |Subject: OFF: Re: BUS: Fookiemyartug
> |Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 18:54:31 -0500
> |
> |On 11/4/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |> I hereby claim Fookiemyartug to be a person per the rules of Agora.
> |
> |The following is part of the CotC's weekly report:
> |
> |Fookiemyartug is a person.
> 
> 
> 
> Judge pikhq's Arguments:
> 
> I judge comex GUILTY in the CFJ 1783, with the initiator's arguments.
> 
> 
> 

You cannot recuse. I sentenced him to APOLOGY. This case is already closed.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1783: recuse, assign OscarMeyr

[Zefram]

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 explicitly; you didn't
prescribe any set.

You've had ample opportunity to deliver an unambiguously valid sentence
in response to my message.  CFJ on my interpretation if you like.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1783: recuse, assign OscarMeyr

[Josiah Worcester]

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 set
> is valid, but (as I interpret it) must be stated explicitly; you didn't
> prescribe any set.
> 
> You've had ample opportunity to deliver an unambiguously valid sentence
> in response to my message.  CFJ on my interpretation if you like.
> 
> -zefram
> 

That's the first I saw of that indication. I blame you for my loss of VCs (if 
any).

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1783: recuse, assign OscarMeyr

[Ian Kelly]

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't make sense to blame
Zefram for you missing it.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1783: recuse, assign OscarMeyr

[Josiah Worcester]

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-November/008101.html
> 
> The message was in the public forum, so it doesn't make sense to blame
> Zefram for you missing it.
> 
> -root
> 

I still blame him, regardless of whether or not it makes sense. :p

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1783: recuse, assign OscarMeyr

[Zefram]

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-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
|From: Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: BUS: CFJ 1783
|Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
|Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:40:55 +
...
|Since you haven't specified a set of prescribed words, I think this is
|not a valid judgement.  Rule 1504 is clear that the set of words is a
|mandatory part of an APOLOGY sentence:

It's archived at

and
.

-zefram

DIS: Re: BUS: Hell, why not?

[comex]

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.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

DIS: Re: BUS: Hell, why not?

[comex]

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.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Hell, why not?

[Ian Kelly]

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 subsequent correction did not include tallies for
those proposals at all.  If that's the case, then I think e's correct;
Rule 208 is quite clear on the matter.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: Help?

[Josiah Worcester]

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 (regardless of his or her opinion on
> > the better proposal 5326).
> 
> I vote FOR*1048576 Proposal 5323
> 

Are you *aware* of your VVLOP?

DIS: Re: BUS: Help?

[Josiah Worcester]

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 opinion on the 
> > better proposal 5326).
> >   
> I submit the following votes on Proposal 5323:
> AGAINST x 1
> FOR x 2
> 
> Levi
> 
> 

You all *like* quantum gamestates, don't you? :p

DIS: Violet VC status update

[Ed Murphy]

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, OscarMeyr, root
 Twelve Months Long Service:  Michael, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root, Goethe

Since then, I believe these Long Service titles have been gained:

 Rulekeepor Zefram gained 3MLS on June 21, 6MLS on September 21
 ex-Herald BobTHJ gained 3MLS on August 23
 ex-IADoP Human Point Two gained 3MLS on August 18

The Violet VC award for gaining a Patent Title was adopted on September
13, so the only one that was missed was Zefram's 6MLS.  I have updated
the draft Assessor's report accordingly.

DIS: Never mind.

[Ed Murphy]

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.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agora's Child II

[Taral]

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 serious forum.

Do I need a Google Account to use Google Groups?
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=46438&topic=9244

How do I subscribe to a group?
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=46606&topic=9244

-- 
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown

DIS: Status of wins by paradox

[Ed Murphy]

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 judged true,
then on November 24:

  * root won (second judgement of CFJ 1787), gaining 2 UV VCs
  * root gained MwP and thus 1 V VC
  * Eris lost MwP (but not 1 V VC); Speakership moves to Murphy
  * everyone's VVLOP was reset to BVLOP

If the judgement of CFJ 1805 is not overturned on appeal, then on
November 30, comex will win (judgement of CFJ 1799), with similar
effects.

Did I miss anything?