Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2028 assigned to root ais523
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> You're half right. I initiate an appeal on the question of sentence in >>> this case. >> >> I'm pretty sure that's unsuccessful unless I'm missing something big... >> >> Are you trying to argue R101(iii)? >> > From R2169: > > An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity > case within the past week CAN be initiated by any party to the > contract in question by announcement. > > BobTHJ > Is this an equity case?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2028 assigned to root ais523
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You're half right. I initiate an appeal on the question of sentence in >> this case. > > I'm pretty sure that's unsuccessful unless I'm missing something big... > > Are you trying to argue R101(iii)? > >From R2169: An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity case within the past week CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question by announcement. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2028 assigned to root ais523
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're half right. I initiate an appeal on the question of sentence in > this case. I'm pretty sure that's unsuccessful unless I'm missing something big... Are you trying to argue R101(iii)? -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2028 assigned to root ais523
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] >> > I appeal this case. I think you mean that you intend to appeal either the sentence or the judgment on culpability with 2 support. -woggle
Re: DIS: Impeachment proto
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taking the above into consideration, new proto:
>
> AI=1.7
> "Impeachment"
> {
> In rule 1504, between the paragraphs describing the sentences of FINE
> and CHOKEY, add the following paragraph
> {{
> * IMPEACH from an elected office with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days
> multiplied by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,
> appropriate if the rule
> breach is
> related to an abuse of an elected office, or failure to perform
> duties, or other things related to an elected office that the
> defendant holds. When this sentence first becomes active., if the
> defendant still holds the relevant office, e is immediately removed
> from that office, and the IADoP SHALL, as soon as possible, nominate a
> different player to hold the office in question. If the sentence is
> active for a positive period of time, the defendant CANNOT be
> nominated for the office in question while this sentence is active.
> }}
> }
>
Reword beginning to match other tariffed sentences.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2028 assigned to root ais523
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:50 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 14:36 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2028 >>> >>> = Criminal Case 2028 = >>> >>> the Reformed Bank of Agora violated R2144 by registering while >>> having the same basis (BobTHJ and Ivan Hope CXXVII) as the >>> Protection Racket, a registered player. >>> >>> > > [SNIP] > >> Verdict: GUILTY/APOLOGY (null set of prescribed words) > > I CFJ on the statement "The Reformed Bank of Agora is a partnership." > > Arguments: > > By Rule 2145, a partnership must devolve its obligations onto its > members. This necessitates that the members be empowered to cause the > partnership to meet its obligations. > > In the case of criminal apologies, Rule 1504 requires that the apology > be submitted within 72 hours. However, the only way for the members > of the RBoA to cause it to submit an apology is to act on its behalf > without three objections. By Rule 1728, the minimum time-frame for > performing an action without N objections is four days. Thus, it is > impossible (without advance warning) for the RBoA to meet an > obligation to submit an apology. > > It follows that the members of the RBoA are not empowered to cause it > to submit an apology within the time requirements for doing so. I > therefore claim that the RBoA does not satisfactorily devolve its > obligations upon its members, and so it is not a partnership. Gratuitous: The partners can enable themselves to fulfill this obligation within the time limit amending the RBoA with agreement of all parties. The partners may be able to substantially postpone the obligation by appealing the sentence before the deadline for the apology is up. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I think.
I wrote: > These were both to the PF. Discussion ends and voting begins at > Wed 2 Jul 17:59:17 UTC. (Sorry, the later attempt to retract is > unsuccessful.) I still need one or more votes on whether to lynch Pavitra.
Re: DIS: Impeachment proto
Taking the above into consideration, new proto:
AI=1.7
"Impeachment"
{
In rule 1504, between the paragraphs describing the sentences of FINE
and CHOKEY, add the following paragraph
{{
* IMPEACH from an elected office the defendant currently holds for a
specified period of time (possibly none), appropriate if the rule
breach is
related to an abuse of an elected office, or failure to perform
duties, or other things related to an elected office that the
defendant holds. When this sentence first becomes active., if the
defendant still holds the relevant office, e is immediately removed
from that office, and the IADoP SHALL, as soon as possible, nominate a
different player to hold the office in question. If the sentence is
active for a positive period of time, the defendant CANNOT be
nominated for the office in question while this sentence is active.
}}
}
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2028 assigned to root ais523
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ah...for some reason I thought that Apology didn't go into effect >> until one week after the sentence, at which point you had three days >> to respond. But I guess it doesn't have a tariff. >> >> This should be fixed. 72 hours doesn't seem like a reasonable >> time-frame to me, even for first class players. I submit the following >> proposal: > > I think it would be better to shuffle the one-week delay so that it > applies to all sentences. Proposal coming up. Nah, I changed my mind. I don't want to have to deal with what happens when the ninny satisfies eir obligation before it's even imposed. Your proposal should make the equivalent change for the FINE sentence, though. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2028 assigned to root ais523
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ah...for some reason I thought that Apology didn't go into effect > until one week after the sentence, at which point you had three days > to respond. But I guess it doesn't have a tariff. > > This should be fixed. 72 hours doesn't seem like a reasonable > time-frame to me, even for first class players. I submit the following > proposal: I think it would be better to shuffle the one-week delay so that it applies to all sentences. Proposal coming up. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market - Broker's Report
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> VP HOLDINGS >> Party VP >> --- >> BobTHJ 62* >> Fookiemyartug 50 >> The P2P Partnership 0 >> Goethe 35 >> comex 31 >> Murphy 50 >> pikhq 50 >> Ivan Hope 49 >> Wooble 51 >> Quazie 50 >> ehird 0 >> ais523 80* >> Pavitra51 >> RBOA (not a party) 18 > > CoE: I joined the Vote Market, so should have 50 VP. > > -root > Admitted. It will be in my next report. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Impeachment proto
Sgeo wrote:
> AI=1.7
> "Impeachment"
> {
> In rule 1504, between the paragraphs describing the sentences of FINE
> and CHOKEY, add the following paragraph
> {{
> * IMPEACH from an elected office, appropriate if the rule breach is
> related to an abuse of an elected office, or failure to perform
> duties, or other things related to an elected office that the
> defendant holds. 1 Week after this sentence is assigned, if the
^^
"when this sentence goes into effect"
> defendant still holds the relevant office, e is immediately removed
> from that office, and the IADoP SHALL, as soon as possible, nominate a
> different player to hold the office in question.
> }}
> }
I had a proto a while back to require the IADoP to nominate someone for
vacant offices (as well as quarterly for non-perpetual offices); I
didn't propose it in the latest round because one of the other proposals
(I think MANDATE) was already messing with that clause.
Also, you might want to strengthen this to "the defendant CANNOT be
nominated for the relevant office while the sentence is in effect or
being appealed" (allowing the judge to select the duration of the
sentence, similar to CHOKEY and EXILE).
Re: DIS: Assessor home
ais523 wrote: > Is there any way that this could be changed not to count more than one > vote per player on a Democratic decision? People voting too many times > is causing me to have to work out voting ratios by hand in many cases. I've corrected all existing cases (root on 5584; Ivan Hope on 5585-88, 5592, 5595), and will work later on creating a web entry form that enforces voting limits.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market changes
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: >> What if you had the ability to optionally avoid the forced sale and >> instead be subject to criminal penalty? Would this be reasonable to >> you? > > At this point, I'm realizing that I'm not comfortable being in a contract > with this kind of economic character where (1) leaving the contract is limited > in many circumstances and (2) the contract change mechanism is majority vote > instead of without X objections. It's too easy to give substantial economic > power to 51% of the group. You're making what should be "power-2 or above" > level changes with a majority vote. > > That aside, I'd be comfortable with forced offering rates (must make X offers > per N proposals at a fixed rate P when you're under water) but not ones where > the buyer dictates absoliutely and automatically which proposal it happens > for. > > I'd also suggest lowering the definition of "under water" to 40 for minimum > (required to raise above within N days) but still 50 for being allowed to > quit. > This way you get a few "freebies" (a few things you can buy without having > to switch into sell mode). Right now I think offers are so cheap because > people are being forced to switch to sell mode too much (or trying to > protect against it). > I think these are reasonable suggestions. I'll re-publish my changes. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market changes
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > What if you had the ability to optionally avoid the forced sale and > instead be subject to criminal penalty? Would this be reasonable to > you? At this point, I'm realizing that I'm not comfortable being in a contract with this kind of economic character where (1) leaving the contract is limited in many circumstances and (2) the contract change mechanism is majority vote instead of without X objections. It's too easy to give substantial economic power to 51% of the group. You're making what should be "power-2 or above" level changes with a majority vote. That aside, I'd be comfortable with forced offering rates (must make X offers per N proposals at a fixed rate P when you're under water) but not ones where the buyer dictates absoliutely and automatically which proposal it happens for. I'd also suggest lowering the definition of "under water" to 40 for minimum (required to raise above within N days) but still 50 for being allowed to quit. This way you get a few "freebies" (a few things you can buy without having to switch into sell mode). Right now I think offers are so cheap because people are being forced to switch to sell mode too much (or trying to protect against it). -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market changes
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote: > If the 30 days were changed to 60 days, would you support then? The > contract is then less restrictive then it was before. There was no mandated enforced sale previously, so it is not less restrictive than before. That's the part I object to. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
2008/7/3 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I mill 4 + 8 = 2. >> I mill 4 - 4 = 0. > Isn't 4+8=1 mod 11? > Oh, someone already caught that. This is what I get for looking at mistakes and not seeing if there's any DIS thread about them..
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I mill 4 + 8 = 2. > I mill 4 - 4 = 0. Isn't 4+8=1 mod 11?
DIS: Impeachment proto
AI=1.7
"Impeachment"
{
In rule 1504, between the paragraphs describing the sentences of FINE
and CHOKEY, add the following paragraph
{{
* IMPEACH from an elected office, appropriate if the rule breach is
related to an abuse of an elected office, or failure to perform
duties, or other things related to an elected office that the
defendant holds. 1 Week after this sentence is assigned, if the
defendant still holds the relevant office, e is immediately removed
from that office, and the IADoP SHALL, as soon as possible, nominate a
different player to hold the office in question.
}}
}
DIS: Assessor home
Is there any way that this could be changed not to count more than one vote per player on a Democratic decision? People voting too many times is causing me to have to work out voting ratios by hand in many cases. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market changes
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I object to anything that takes away a good-faith ability to settle > accounts as opposed to forced selling. This is bad, and I urge others > not to approve. I also intend to leave the Vote Market as soon as I can, > as it's obvious that I can't depend on a contract changable by "majority > consent" to be anywhere near reasonably protective of an individual's > interests. > > -Goethe > Just out of curiosity, would you find this more acceptable if the time period for forced voting were extended beyond 16-17 days? Presently, you must fulfill your obligations within 60 days. When you fail to do so the likely outcome an equation that forces you to sell anywaythis change simply saves the step of initiating the equity case. What if you had the ability to optionally avoid the forced sale and instead be subject to criminal penalty? Would this be reasonable to you? BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market changes
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 09:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I object to anything that takes away a good-faith ability to settle > accounts as opposed to forced selling. This is bad, and I urge others > not to approve. I also intend to leave the Vote Market as soon as I can, > as it's obvious that I can't depend on a contract changable by "majority > consent" to be anywhere near reasonably protective of an individual's > interests. Well, the proposed change allows players 30 days to try to sort the situation out for themselves. The previous version allowed 60 days, after which a SHALL requirement was violated, and comex got chokeyed and also forced to vote as requested by the other parties as a result (due to an equity case). This new version effectively just streamlines the equity case out of the way, instead prescribing what should happen. It also sets a value on VP. (3 VP for a retracted and recast vote is quite a lot, really, the mandatory forced sell is not good value on today's vote market; you were selling this for 2VP on proposals recently, and presumably are still doing so on all but the most recent batch.) If the 30 days were changed to 60 days, would you support then? The contract is then less restrictive then it was before. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market changes
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I strongly object to this change. -Goethe > Both of them? To the public forum even? BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market changes
I strongly object to this change. -Goethe
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Borrowing from ais523's ideas and other discussions, with the majority
> consent of the Vote Market parties I intend to amend the agreement as
> follows:
> {
> Replace section 10 with:
> {{
> A first-class party who has less than 50 VP and whose VP has been less
> than 50 for the majority of the past 30 days is an "indebted" party.
> Any non-indebted party CAN transfer 3VP to an indebted party to act on
> behalf of that party to retract any previous ballots on an Agoran
> decision and cast a number of new ballots on that decision equal to
> the indebted party's voting limit on that decision. The indebted party
> SHALL NOT retract any ballots cast this way.
> }}
>
> In section 8 replace:
> {{
> Upon such an announcement all VP held by that player are destroyed.
> }}
> with:
> {{
> Upon such an announcement 50 VP held by that player are destroyed.
> }}
>
> Create a new section with the text:
> {{
> Casting a vote of SELL (X - Y) on an Agoran decision is equivalent to
> posting a Sell Ticket with a cost of X and casting a number of ballots
> equal to your voting limit on that decision endorsing the filler of
> that ticket, or if no one fills that ticket casting a number of Y
> ballots on that decision equal to your voting limit.
> }}
> }
>
> Without three objections I intend to make the following change to the
> Vote Market agreement:
> {
> Replace section 1 with:
> {{
> The name of this contract is the Vote Market. This is a public
> contract. The parties to this contract shall collectively act to
> ensure it fulfills its obligations. If the Vote Market is not
> currently registered and is able to do so the Broker CAN and SHALL act
> on behalf of the Vote Market to register it as soon as possible. Any
> party may act on behalf of the Vote Market agreement to take any
> action except voting or retracting ballots on an Agoran Decision with
> the majority consent of the parties.
> }}
>
> Create a new section with the text:
> {{
> Whenever the VVLOD of the Vote Market increases by 1 then 5VP are
> created in the possession of the person (if any) who directly caused
> this increase. A party CAN destroy 1VP in eir possession to act on
> behalf of the Vote Market agreement to retract any previous ballots
> cast on an Agoran decision then cast a number of ballots on that
> decision equal to its voting limit.
> }}
> }
>
> BobTHJ
>
DIS: Proto: Ostracism
Proposal: Preparing for ostracism (AI=2)
{{
Amend Rule 1504 by replacing:
* EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by
the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,
appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably
correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the
tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches
amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type
is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as
required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,
e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.
with:
* EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by
the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,
appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably
correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the
tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches
amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type
is active, the ninny is exiled.
Change the Power of Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora) to 1.5.
Change the Power of Rule 2130 (Activity) to 1.5.
Create a new Rule (Power=1.5) titled "Exile and Ostracism", with the text:
{{
Causing an entity to be exiled is a secured change. If an
exiled entity is ever a player, e is deregistered. An exiled
entity CANNOT register.
Causing an entity to be ostracized is a secured change. If an
ostracized player is ever Active, e becomes Inactive. An
ostracized player's Activity CANNOT otherwise be changed, rules
to the contrary notwithstanding.
}}
}}
Proposal: One-off ostracism (AI=2)
{{
By voting FOR this proposal you agree that an OSTRACISM is necessary
for Agora Nomic.
Create a new Rule (Power=1.5) titled "Ostracism (7/08)", with the text:
{{
Upon the creation of this Rule, the Registrar CAN and SHALL as
soon as possible initiate an Agoran decision to determine who
should be ostracized. In this decision, the valid options are
all entities, and the eligible voters are the active players.
When the voting period of this decision ends, if the result is
not FAILED QUORM, the entity selected by Agora is ostracized for
thirty days. After that duration, this rule repeals itself. If
the result is FAILED QUORUM, this rule repeals itself
immediately.
}}
}}
[Not that I actually think Agora needs an ostracism right now...]
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Quick, we have but a second....
On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 16:46 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Time for crop watering again. I'll hold off a couple days to give you > > time to harvest those Water Rights Vouchers. > > I join the Vote Market. > > I post the following Sell Ticket: > > * Action: Transfer all my current lands, crops, and WRV to the filler > of this ticket. > * Cost: AUCTION > > -root I bid 3 VP on this ticket. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5585-5598
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:44 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 5591 O1 1BobTHJ Activate the PRS > FOR (a neat way to get around the one-contest-per-contestmaster > restriction!) Thanks! Care to vote your EVLOD instead of a single FOR vote? BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Hello, world
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 21:01 -0400, comex wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Indeed. Without 3 objections, I intend to cause the Reformed Bank of > > Agora to destroy the currencies described above from its possession, > > in the quantities described above, except for the Vote Points. > > I post a Buy Ticket: > Cost: 2 VP > Action: > (a) not have objected to this attempt before this message, > (b) object to this attempt, and > (c) do not withdraw this objection while that is possible I fill this ticket. I object to root's attempt to cause the Reformed Bank of Agora to destroy currencies. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Contracts and Changes
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 00:57 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > ais523 wrote: > > > Name: The Werewolves of Agora Nomic > > Contest: true > > Publicity: public > > Pledge: false > > Parties: Murphy, root, Zefram, Wooble, ais523, tusho, Pavitra, ehird > > Claim of error: comex and Quazie are also parties. Admitted. > Also, the HTML version of the Notary's report omits the AAA. Really? I'll have to look into how that happened. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Proto-weekly-report for Notary
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CONTESTS (must be public to become a contest) > > NameContestmaster > - > Agoran Agricultural Association BobTHJ > Agoran Proposal Awards BobTHJ proto-COE: The Agoran Proposal Awards is a pseudo-contest, not an actual contest. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 12:53 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: > Federal Subsidy: 8 I request subsidisation. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> No, 4 - 4 is 0, in any base arithmetic. >>> >> Oops... >> >> But not in binary :) > > If you're using a 4 in your binary, you're probably doing something > horribly wrong. Obviously in binary, 4 is an arbitrary symbol like X, so 4 - 4 is 0, even in binary. -G.
Re: DIS: Proposal mania
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why not PRESENT on all of them? Because I can't be sure they don't have a scam in. Especially seeing as how there are so many, the likelihood of an embedded scam is higher. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Proto-weekly-report for Notary
PARTNERSHIPS (must be public to be a person) NamePartners Association of Federated Organizations comex, Levi, Murphy, pikhq Human Point Two OscarMeyr, Quazie Left Hand Murphy, pikhq PerlNomic Partnership abliss, ais523, chuck, comex, erez, Ivan Hope, jay, norgg, Pavitra, tusho, woggle, Wooble Pineapple Partnership comex, Zefram Reformed Bank of Agora BobTHJ, Ivan Hope, Murphy, root Teh Cltohed Mna ... Ivan Hope, tusho CONTESTS (must be public to become a contest) NameContestmaster - Agoran Agricultural Association BobTHJ Agoran Proposal Awards BobTHJ Enigma ais523 Fantasy Rules Contest root The Werewolves of Agora Nomic Murphy PLEDGES (* = public) NameParties --- Agoran Slavery BobTHJ *Note Exchange Ivan Hope, Murphy Objectionable comex, Quazie, tusho pledge #1 Ivan Hope pledge #12 tusho pledge #14 ais523 pledge #15 ais523 *pledge concerning Vigilantes Wooble *Protection Racket BobTHJ, Ivan Hope, tusho Vote Goethe Goethe OTHER (* = public) NamePurpose --- *Agoran Civil Service Union currency: ningis Ducks & Platypuses Automatic violation equation of CFJ 1927release comex from Vote Market *Flapjack charter nomic *Points Relay Service proto-contest *Vote Marketcurrency: Vote Points
