DIS: Such Vile Calumny!
Nostalgic curiosity brings me to check in on Agora, only to find myself (Elysion) branded a fugitive! This injustice cannot be permitted to continue, and I demand satisfaction in the most Agoran way possible: a pedantic logical argument. (The statements here are true to the best of my knowledge based on my good faith efforts to search the archives; however, as the events in question took place nearly 15 years ago, I cannot rule out the possibility that I overlooked some relevant piece of evidence.) The Scroll of Agora [1] lists me as a fugitive of the old law, defined as "someone who last left Agora before completing eir penal sentence". As the Scroll of Agora has been ratified at least once with that designation listed ([1] ratification noted; [2] such ratified version), I concede that in the view of the Agoran rules such statements as "Elysion last left Agora before completing eir penal sentence" would presumably be judged true. I argue that, absent ratification, such a statement should be judged false. Taken literally, it is straightforwardly false. My last deregistration was 2009-04-07 [3]. Contemporaneous Insulator reports ([4] and [5]) do not list me as a fugitive. A literal interpretation does not fully capture the spirit of the designation, though, as one could deregister before a controversy is fully decided, or indeed before another player can even initiate the process to resolve the controversy. That does not apply in this case, though, as my fugitive status arose as a side effect of the Blissful Solitude scam [6] in September 2009, months after my deregistration. The Insulator reports immediately prior [7] and after [8] (in particular, the recent event "ais523 plays Stool Pidgeon to create a rest in PBA's possession (one rest created in the possession of each first-class member of the basis)") document the change in my status. Therefore, even assuming for now that the Blissful Solitude scam did cause me to gain a rest when I was no longer a player -- a question I am setting aside for now as arguing otherwise would require a detailed understanding of the relevant rules at the time -- I was not currently or imminently subject to any penal sentence at the time of my last deregistration. [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg13854.html [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg09593.html [3] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg12958.html [4] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg02963.html [5] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg03010.html [6] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg17498.html [7] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg04015.html [8] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg04103.html
DIS: Whither Werewolves?
A pretty self-explanatory subject line... -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2274 assigned to Elysion
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:51:22 -0500 comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Joshua Boehme boehm...@msu.edu wrote: This judge sees no reason why the statement in question (I make Proposal X democratic) should be considered ambiguous when similar statements about other aspects of proposals and their decisions have not been considered ambiguous. Thus, I judge the statement TRUE. The voting period of a proposal has not been defined in a long time nor is there any ambiguity in referring to it. Purporting to make a proposal democratic, however, could refer to changing its adoption index. It can only be set when it is submitted, or increased by Wielding the Veto. What you're saying then is the two meanings I make Proposal X democratic = I make the decision whether to adopt Proposal X democratic and I make Proposal X democratic = I Wield the Veto on Proposal X are of similar plausability to make the I make Proposal X democratic ambiguous? (Note that I completely disagree with that, but I am trying to make sense of where you're coming from.) -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling in CFJ 2301
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:28:32 + Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10 Dec 2008, at 20:26, Roger Hicks wrote: As required by this sentence I destroy one coin in my possession. I would recommend judges to fine more like 10 coins in future, 1 coin is near-worthless. It's worth something like 5-6 Chits. -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I has a trumpet
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:16:41 -0700
Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, without three objections, to amend the Vote Market agreement
as follows:
{
Insert after the first sentence of section 2:
{{
Ownership of Vote Points is restricted to persons.
}}
Upon the adoption of this amendment any Vote Points owned by
non-persons are transferred back to their most recent owner that was a
person. If there was no such owner, they are destroyed. Fookiemyartug
and the P2P Partnership cease to be members of Vote Market.
}
}
Um, this opens the door to a massive scamming of the RBoA.
--
Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I has a trumpet
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:59:20 -0700
Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 16:43, Joshua Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:16:41 -0700
Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, without three objections, to amend the Vote Market agreement
as follows:
{
Insert after the first sentence of section 2:
{{
Ownership of Vote Points is restricted to persons.
}}
Upon the adoption of this amendment any Vote Points owned by
non-persons are transferred back to their most recent owner that was a
person. If there was no such owner, they are destroyed. Fookiemyartug
and the P2P Partnership cease to be members of Vote Market.
}
}
Um, this opens the door to a massive scamming of the RBoA.
Why? The RBOA is a person...
Sorry, I was thinking first-class person. Carry on.
--
Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:24:37 + Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 30 Nov 2008, at 16:41, Taral wrote: AGAINST (scammable) how? I just told my dog that I purported to ratify a document. (No, not really, but that illustrates one of the problems.) -- Elysion
DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:59:44 + Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CFJ: The PRS is a contest Arguments: Wooble neat, PRS isn't a contest; Notary is recordkeepor of contestmasters so ratifying the Scorekeepor report didn't make it a contest. Wooble and since the Scorekeepor report hasn't been published regularly, point holdings haven't been ratified recently. Wooble although the scorekeepor's report does officially contain the contestmasters too. wtf? Since I wasn't in on the discussion, could someone provide the context, please? Why do we think the PRS is not a contest? (I just looked at a Notary's report, which says it is a contest.) -- Elysion
DIS: Re: BUS: PBA Amendment
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:09:13 -0700
Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 19:19, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with the support of the people, to amend the PBA by
replacing section 17 with:
{{
17. Every midnight (UTC) that the PBA had zero of a given Eligible
Currency for the
prior 24 hours, that currency's exchange rate goes up by 2. Every Monday
midnight (UTC) that the PBA had a non-zero amount of a given Eligible
Currency for
the prior 24 hours, that currency's exchange rate goes down by 2.
}}
I object, primarily because I don't want to adjust my recordkeeping scripts.
The flip side is that it will cut down on certain types of runs (such as root's
recent), thus saving you transaction entry work over time.
--
Elysion
DIS: Re: BUS: Bank run, part 2
On 23 Nov 2008 00:00:16 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I PBA-deposit all the assets I recently withdrew in the message titled Bank run, part 1 (I believe this gets me ^667). Until woggle's amendment is adopted, I encourage all Comrades to deposit large quantities of assets close to midnight. Surprise deposits can make a scheme like this very, very costly. -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Banking Spree #2
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 09:06:48 -0700 Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:23, Joshua Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Again, these are maximally severable, and my Coin and Chit estimates are provided only for convenience.) I PBA-withdraw a 7 Crop (^-14) I RBOA-withdraw a B Credit (-55 Chits) According to my records, the PBA is out of 7 crops and the RBOA is out of B credits, so these withdraws and the subsequent deposits failed. The rest was successful. Why does the online report (http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx) show both banks having the respective currencies, then? The reports have been updated -- including transactions subsequent to my run #2 -- and do not show any deposits of those 2 currencies after my attempted transactions. Hence, those assets must have been held by the banks at the time of my attempts. -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Banking Spree #2
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:13:34 -0500 Joshua Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 09:06:48 -0700 Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:23, Joshua Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Again, these are maximally severable, and my Coin and Chit estimates are provided only for convenience.) I PBA-withdraw a 7 Crop (^-14) I RBOA-withdraw a B Credit (-55 Chits) According to my records, the PBA is out of 7 crops and the RBOA is out of B credits, so these withdraws and the subsequent deposits failed. The rest was successful. Why does the online report (http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx) show both banks having the respective currencies, then? The reports have been updated -- including transactions subsequent to my run #2 -- and do not show any deposits of those 2 currencies after my attempted transactions. Hence, those assets must have been held by the banks at the time of my attempts. Okay, maybe not. It looks like the holdings can get cached even if the history isn't? -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bank run, part 2
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:50:00 -0700 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Joshua Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 23 Nov 2008 00:00:16 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I PBA-deposit all the assets I recently withdrew in the message titled Bank run, part 1 (I believe this gets me ^667). Until woggle's amendment is adopted, I encourage all Comrades to deposit large quantities of assets close to midnight. Surprise deposits can make a scheme like this very, very costly. Only on Monday midnights, when the rate for a currency that isn't entirely withdrawn would go down instead of up. On any other night, surprise deposits would cause the scam to fail without penalty for some assets, but it could also increase the ROI for some of the successful ones. As a result, I think the overall trend would be that it would make the scam more profitable. Surprise withdrawals, OTOH, would ensure the scam's success but reduce the potential profits. What I am suggesting is trying to time deposits to fall between the withdrawals and the deposits. In such a case, the deposits devalue the assets your are holding as well as prevent the automatic exchange rate increase. Since your margins are already somewhat thin, a shift in rates of a couple of coins per asset... -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:24:52 -0500 Jamie Dallaire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cross posting because I figure there could be interest on both sides. If need be this can be a Werewolves-like endeavour. Would anyone be interested in playing the following, based on Robert Axelrod's and WD Hamilton's The Evolution of Cooperation? (see links below) I would have moderate interest in this, provided it is in a programming language I am either familiar with or could learn quickly (i.e., languages such as PHP, C, and the like). -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Cantus Cygneus Only If You Mean It (AI=2)
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:21:06 -0800 Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why make it different than 30-days due to normal deregistration? Facing this, I'd personally just write an equally pissed-off letter followed by this is not a Cantus Cygnus, I deregister. The point of Writ of FAGE is to give a colorful outlet and thus perhaps defuse the tension, it shouldn't be punished. -G. It's not punishment. It's to ensure that you *really* want to leave. Perhaps we should do 15 and 30 instead of 30 and 90? Indeed. It is rather anti-climactic for someone to make a grand exit, only to return soon thereafter. -- Elysion
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2271 assigned to BobTHJ
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:31:06 -0800 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: == CFJ 2271 == None of the attempted registrations (P1 through P100) in comex's quoted message were succesful. Judge: BobTHJ ^^ Oh irony, thy name is Agora. -- Elysion
DIS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:41:11 -0500
comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical
annotation:
{
Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
}
Annotations != rules. The rules require the Rulekeepor to track annotations and
encourage em to do so, but it gives no particular legal force to the
annotations so tracked.
--
Elysion
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2271 assigned to BobTHJ
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:31:06 -0800 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Caller's Arguments: Rule 869 states in part: A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so. The question is, does the so in the second sentence refer to deregister[ing] or to deregister[ing] by announcement? If the latter, then even deregistrations by means of a Cantus Cygneus trigger a thirty day window. Bah, and that should have been If the former not If the latter. That'll teach me to fight scams faster than I can think. -- Elysion
DIS: Re: BUS: Just in case
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:03:20 -0800 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:30 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with 2 support, to make Proposals 5956 and 5962 democratic. I support. With 2 support, I make Proposals 5956 and 5962 democratic, if possible. I issue a claim of error against the-AFO-via-comex's purported resolution of 5962, as it misreported my vote. (comex, you typoed and bought my vote on 5952 instead of 5962.) I didn't spot any similar errors with 5956 (i.e. the only point of contention is how many of ehird's votes were valid), but others are invited to double-check and make sure. Rule 2034/4 (Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges) [snip] Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, votes on it CANNOT be validly submitted or retracted, and its outcome CANNOT be changed in any way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This does not prevent correcting errors in reporting its resolution. The only argument I can see around that is to argue that a substantially and deliberately incorrect attempted resolution fails to satisfy 208(c), and thus the Agoran decisions on proposals 5956 and 5962 have not been resolved. -- Elysion
DIS: Proto: Allow Changes to Voting Limits on Ordinary Decisions (AI=2)
(This is NOT a proposal, as there is a pending CFJ on this matter. Comments on the wording would be welcome.) Allow Changes to Voting Limits on Ordinary Decisions (AI=2) Amend rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions) by appending the following paragraph: Other rules may specify methods to increase or decrease an eligible voter's voting limit on an ordinary decision. Unless otherwise specified by the rules, any such increases or decreases remain effective for that decision until the decision is resolved. -- Elysion
DIS: Re: BUS: If at first you don't succeed...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:03:02 + Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/11/17 Joshua Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The question is, does the so in the second sentence refer to deregister[ing] or to deregister[ing] by announcement? If the latter, then even deregistrations by means of a Cantus Cygneus trigger a thirty day window. -- Elysion Arguments: Again, strong precedence. If we ignore precedence we have to evaluate this based on wherever the gamestate got stuck and we're actually playing now... years in the past... I only see two instances in the Registrar's report of a player deregistering in a Writ of FAGE and reregistering again within 30 days. The first was Kelly in 1995. Was the language in question even a part of 869 that early? The second instance is BobTHJ in January 2008. Digging through the archives, it looks like it generated some discussion, but I don't see a CFJ on it. Thus, we cannot conclusively say that BobTHJ's registration was permitted -- it could have been against the rules but merely went unchallenged. I also dispute that just two examples constitute a strong precedent, particularly when one is more than a decade old. Regardless, the Registrar's report has since been ratified, so I don't think it would generate any more redetermination than we're already facing with the scam attempt. -- Elysion
DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Elections for IADoP, Tailor
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:04:19 -0500 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the holders of the IADoP and Tailor offices. The eligible voters are the active players and the vote collector is the IADoP. For IADoP, the valid options are Wooble and Warrigal. For Tailor, the valid options are Wooble and Warrigal. What, no campaign speeches anymore? -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposal 5961
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:47:59 -0500 Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/11/17 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]: CoE: This is missing most of the votes that were cast on this proposal. I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal case alleging that the AFO violated Rule 2215 by publishing the below message in an attempt to mislead other into thinking P5961 passed. I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal case alleging that comex violated Rule 1742 by causing the AFO to not obey the rules of Agora to the maximum possible extent by causing it to publish the below quoted message. The other ballots were declared invalid. Possibly, the declaration of invalidity did not work.. I remember some rule against tampering with these things, though that might be from Canada.. Is this what you were thinking of? Rule 2034/4 (Power=3) Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges Any proposal that would otherwise change the validity of any existing vote on any specific unresolved Agoran decision is wholly without effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This does not prevent amendment of the rules governing the validity of votes on Agoran decisions in general. Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, votes on it CANNOT be validly submitted or retracted, and its outcome CANNOT be changed in any way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This does not prevent correcting errors in reporting its resolution. A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying. -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: forgot something
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:03:51 + Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 12:58 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote: On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 19:32, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Don't want to be bound by contests broken when equity dies Unfortunate but not interested]. I resign from each and every public contract of which (a) I am a member and (b) the contract allows me to exit at this time. From the perspective of economic contracts and contests you have left: Nomic Wars II, Enigma, and the FRC. Enigma doesn't seem to have a provision for letting people leave. Probably that's a bug, and we should force inactive people out of it to tone down its insanely large point output. Proto... Amend rule 2136 (Contests) by replacing the text: The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week is equal to 5 times the number of its members that are first- class players. with: The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week is equal to 5 times the number of its members that are active first-class players. and the text: The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first- class players. with: The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are active first-class players. -- Elysion
Re: DIS: [Fwd: RE: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations]
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 19:49:16 + Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8 Nov 2008, at 19:14, Sgeo wrote: Might I point out that if they were to invade us with a sufficiently large invasion force, Agora would lose, badly, in weeks? You serious? I doubt half of them could even make a working proposal... If their capabilities are so questionable (as has been suggested by multiple emails now), why are we so concerned with their recognition? Is Agora really so insecure as to require validation at every available opportunity? -- Elysion
DIS: Proto-proto: Philanthropist
Proto-proto: The Philanthropist There shall exist an office knowns as the Philanthropist. Eir duties shall include organizing non-mandatory ways for Agorans to collectively contribute to the extra-Agoran world. Some possible ideas would be making artistic creations that non-Agorans could appreciate as well or organizing teams for distributed computing projects. -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2252 assigned to comex
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 21:21:04 -0600 Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 08 November 2008 08:50:51 pm comex wrote: On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2252 == CFJ 2252 == (the rules of Agora) = === The purported statement of this inquiry case is a set of Rules. While these Rules do contain statements, even a set of statements is not itself a well-formed statement because there is no clear linkage of the substatements. Therefore I rule that this CFJ does not exist (so no judgement is applicable). When interpreting and applying the Rules as a whole in every context prior to this case, we have always (as far as I know) treated them as implicitly ANDed; for example, we have never held that persons can choose to be bound only by an arbitrary subset of the Rules. How does one resolve the logical AND of a statement and a piece of ASCII art? -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 5948
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 11:23:40 -0500 comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:38 AM, The PerlNomic Partnership [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This distribution of proposal 5948 By the way, am I the only one getting sick of these super-frequent distributions? No. Could we perhaps limit it to one distribution in any 72- or 96-hour period? -- Elysion
DIS: Straw Poll
Before I started working on some protos, I wanted to get a feel for people's opinions. There's not much point in taking the trouble to rewrite sections of the rules if people are still enjoying them. Thus, I am wondering: what aspects of the ruleset do people still enjoy or are still playing around with? And what aspects are people bored or annoyed with? And feel free to respond privately if you are more comfortable that way. -- Elysion
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5841-5941
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:33:10 -0700
Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the statement, The proposal submitted by root at or around
Wed, 5 Nov 2008 22:03:48 UTC has been distributed.
Arguments:
The proposal was submitted with this title:
{{{
2001
A Space Odyssey
}}}
The Promotor distributed a similar proposal with the title
2001 A Space Odyssey.
Game custom and precedent (CFJ 1546) hold that the Rulekeepor and
Promotor are able to non-substantively alter the text and formatting
of rules and proposals, respectively, as needed. However, these
precedents were based in part upon Rule 1339/6, which read:
Exact precision is required in the specification of Rule
Changes; any ambiguity or irregularity in the specification of a
Rule Change causes it to be void and without effect.
Counter-argument: the variation is in the title of the Rule Change, not the
Rule Change itself.
--
Elysion
Re: DIS: New agoranomic.org page
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:50:02 -0500 Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 23 October 2008 11:03:50 pm Sgeo wrote: On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: May I host the Agoran Coat of Arms, or may I link to your copy, or should I just remove the image? This raises some interesting questions. What is the copyright status, in various national jurisdictions, of the Ruleset? the text of game-action messages? judicial rulings and arguments? DF messages? derivative works of the above? In the US, new works are copyright and unlicensed by default, and I suspect international standards may be similar; yet our community standards generally allow the creation of derivative works (e.g., judgements citing precedent, amended Rules, web-accessible databases). Do all these things fall under fair use? Or are we creating some sort of tacit license for each other by playing the game? What, exactly, is going on here? And how can the question be CFJed in a way that won't just come back IRRELEVANT? I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the Ruleset has multiple authors. Would there be a distinction between the legal rights of someone who has contributed versus a player who hasn't? What if a player contributed to the Ruleset, but eir contributions have subsequently been removed? (Those questions probably only make sense if we disregard any implied license.) -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Proto: Poet Laureate
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:14:29 -0500
Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our Bards are Three! Let's celebrate
And not this moment shun --
Proposal, Poet Laureate,
AI and II 1:
{
[Ordain an Office for us who'll
Ensure that prose stays not the same.]
At Power 1, create a Rule,
The Poet Laureate its name:
There is an office Poet Laureate,
Which no one but a Bard can occupy.
So long eir post e doesn't abdicate,
Eir weekly duties are that e must try
To make a new Proposal to amend
A Rule, still writ in prose, to verse and rhyme.
And, if the Vote permits the Rule to mend,
Eir monthly duty thus is done on time.
But, if eir week's reports are failed four times,
E shall in timely fashion nominate
(As full sufficient penance for these crimes)
Some other Bard for Poet Laureate.
But, if a year e does not lapse or flee,
E fits the Win Condition Poetry.
}
Or as an alternative idea, the Poet Laureate could write verses on recent
Agoran history.
--
Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I register
Jonathan Fry writes: Chuck isn't a current player, so I think you might be able to register under that name if you wish. Rule 1586 may be relevant: No two Rule-defined entities shall have the same name or nickname. If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that they no longer define that entity, then that entity along with all its properties shall cease to exist. If the Rules defining an entity are amended such that they still define that entity but with different properties, that entity and its properties shall continue to exist to whatever extent is possible under the new definitions. I'm assuming players fall under the definition of Rule-defined entities. What's interesting is that there are patent titles which still exist under the rules and are assigned to Chuck, so it's possible e is still defined to some degree in relation to those. ...meaning e could cause a series of CFJs as soon as e registers. It seems very Agoran, somehow... Joshua Boehme
