DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge & Notice of Honour

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

Gaelan wrote:


I pledge to dedicate my weekly notices of honor to subtracting honour from 
those who, despite not being in on the scam, unconditionally voted for G's rule 
bending proposal (until I've gotten through everyone). The time window for this 
pledge is 20 weeks.

Seriously, y'all, what were you thinking?


Because if they don't demonstrate loopholes, then the Other Guy will,
and who wants /that/ to happen?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge Shenanigans

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-16 9:49 p.m., Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/16/20 5:47 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:

On 2020-07-16 5:47 p.m., ATMunn via agora-business wrote:

On 7/16/2020 1:43 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/16/2020 1:42 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:

I pledge to not say the word "tacos" in any context for the next 24
hours. The time window of this pledge is 24 hours and breaking the
pledge shall be a class 1 crime.


I like tacos.


CFJ: In the above message, I broke a pledge.

Arguments: Though I did say the word I am forbidden to say due to the
pledge, it was 1) not a public message and 2) not an action. So, FALSE
would be logical. However, the pledge does say "in any context." Does
that still make it binding, even outside of public forums?

Gratuitous:

CFJ 3737 may be relevant here. The judge found that if someone agreed to
a contract stating parties SHALL NOT breathe, then breathing would be a
regulated action just for those parties. So, maybe saying "tacos" is a
regulated action just for you.

(Whether or not saying "tacos" is a regulated action, I suspect it is at
least an action, but I'm not sure.)



We don't have the "SHALL NOT be interpreted" anymore, so I don't think
whether it's a regulated action is particularly relevant.


I think that was replaced with "A body of law does not proscribe any 
action which it does not regulate."


I don't know whether the action being regulated or not matters. Maybe if 
it's regulated, that mean ATMunn's attempt to say the word "tacos" using 
the discussion list was unsuccessful, since the rules describe no method 
for saying things other than "publishing" via a public forum.


--
Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge Shenanigans

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 7/16/20 5:47 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
> On 2020-07-16 5:47 p.m., ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
>> On 7/16/2020 1:43 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> On 7/16/2020 1:42 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
 I pledge to not say the word "tacos" in any context for the next 24
 hours. The time window of this pledge is 24 hours and breaking the
 pledge shall be a class 1 crime.

>>> I like tacos.
>>>
>> CFJ: In the above message, I broke a pledge.
>>
>> Arguments: Though I did say the word I am forbidden to say due to the
>> pledge, it was 1) not a public message and 2) not an action. So, FALSE
>> would be logical. However, the pledge does say "in any context." Does
>> that still make it binding, even outside of public forums?
> Gratuitous:
>
> CFJ 3737 may be relevant here. The judge found that if someone agreed to 
> a contract stating parties SHALL NOT breathe, then breathing would be a 
> regulated action just for those parties. So, maybe saying "tacos" is a 
> regulated action just for you.
>
> (Whether or not saying "tacos" is a regulated action, I suspect it is at 
> least an action, but I'm not sure.)
>

We don't have the "SHALL NOT be interpreted" anymore, so I don't think
whether it's a regulated action is particularly relevant.

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge Shenanigans

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

On 7/16/2020 1:42 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:

I pledge to not say the word "tacos" in any context for the next 24
hours. The time window of this pledge is 24 hours and breaking the
pledge shall be a class 1 crime.



I like tacos.

--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary and Czar of Russia :)

DIS: Re: BUS: [Pledge] Contract Summaries

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-04 11:08, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
I pledge to transfer 3 coins to every person who submits a 1-2 sentence 
summary of a contract e is party to. If a person submits summaries for 
multiple contracts, I will transfer 3 coins for every contract e 
submitted a summary for. Multiple summaries for the same contract do not 
count.


The time window for this pledge shall be 14 days. The title of this 
pledge shall be "Contract Summaries".


Summaries for Secret Contracts 1-6: "It's a secret to everybody"

18 coins please!

--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, Rebecca wrote:


I do so.


You were too late as proposal 8050 passed, and pledges are no longer 
retractable.


Fortunately that doesn't matter, as all your pledges were older than 60 
days.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Ned Strange  wrote:

Without objection I intend to retract each pledge I own.

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:



The below pledge list from the June 3 Referee Report self-ratified prior
to Proposal 8050 taking effect.  The pledge dates (date tracking now
required by the Notary) don't self-ratify, but I did go back and confirm.
Searching for 'pledge' in public archives back to March revealed no other
recent pledges.  Pledges older than 60 days no longer require tracking.

=the Referee, whose next report will be shorter=


PLEDGES (self-ratifying list of assets)

== Trigon - Created 01 Jun 2018 07:35:31
I pledge to use as much integrity as is possible whenever I generate
random numbers.


== Corona - Created 27 May 2018 17:29:28
I pledge to do all of the following in Blognomic's current dynasty:

-always ahoy
Gams

-call hunts most of the time
-not change derrick’s or Cuddlebeam’s position if they perform their duties
adequately (scrubbing, joining hunts if healthy…)
-scrub the decks whenever I
am online and can do so

-generally work toward the preservation of the ship and the lives of
sailors, and maximizing profits


== G. - Created 10 May 2018 15:39:57
I pledge that I will not make any bids on behalf of zombies in the May
2018 zombie auction.


===(below pledges were created prior to 01 Apr 2018)===

Quazie -
I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
source info in the explanation).

V.J Rada -
I pledge not to make any thread titles completely unrelated to
the email's content, nor use any agency or other mechanism to
attempt to gain control of any player at the exclusion of all
other players.

Gaelan (14 Sep 2017) -
I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless
the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed.

nichdel -
I pledge to vote AGAINST on all proposals created or pended by
Cuddle Beam.

nichdel -
I pledge to Object to all intentions by Cuddle Beam that I can
object to.

nichdel -
I pledge to give a trust token and 5 shinies (as soon as
possible) to any other player who also performs the above three
pledges, except Cuddle Beam.

nichdel -
I pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
I too pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
I...pledge to fix the margins, if the issue is explained to me.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
still possible.

Cuddlebeam -
I pledge to hook people up in a reasonable amount of time, according
to the message above, during what's left of the current month and
November.
[Referee's note: This pledge refers to the message listed
athttps://www.mail-archive.com/agora
business at agoranomic.org/msg30230.html]

V.J. Rada -
I pledge to give a win and a black ribbon to everyone who votes for
"hopefully you guys all vote for this" if that passes.

o - (Nov 7, '17)
I pledge to pay 5 sh. to the first person to publicly identify the
specific bug I fixed in the Surveyor’s report this week, provided
their answer includes either the word, some synonym for the word, or
some observation related to the word, whose sha256 hash is
e2c2bf1fdea49d1d90f7e17ac158016862f213b42f88b760aee47f697205d83a, and
that I will disclose the word as part of the reward if it is collected.

o -
I pledge to distribute the payment in a timely fashion if the CFJ
finds that CuddleBeam’s payment did, in fact, occur.
[Referee's note: e's referring to a payment made by Cuddlebeam in
accordance with the rule "Poetry Duel Challenge Writ", which is the
subject of a currently unnassigned CFJ. I would appreciate it if you
guys created pledges with the context included in them.]

Trigon -
I pledge that if I do not win the election for Rulekeepor, I will put
myself up as a candidate for this election.
[Referee's note: E's referring to the Fearmongor election on 6 Nov 2017]

V.J. Rada -
I pledge to, weekly, if I am Referee, publish a document called
"Pledges you should withdraw", listing pledges that have already been
completed or are impossible.

V.J. Rada -
I pledge not to point any fingers

Alexis -
I pledge to transfer 5 shinies to the author of the first proposal that
gives the Rulekeepor authority, under Cleanup Time, to additionally
correct, at least: missing periods at the end of sentences, 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Reuben Staley]

I'm assuming this is the location to complain about a-o being messed up. 
I've been out of town and haven't read through this thread really well.


I cannot log into the a-o private archives. Every time I try to, it just 
takes me to the login screen again. It works with a-b and a-d though.


On 6/17/2018 7:30 AM, ATMunn wrote:
I did the same. I asked for people to respond if it was received, and 
there were no responses. In fact, I normally receive a copy of my own 
messages, and I didn't with this one.


On 6/17/2018 3:09 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Not sure if this helps, but I sent a test email to Official on Friday 
to try and narrow down the problem. It hasn't even showed up in the 
list at mail-archive.com, let alone been delivered to anybody.


-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 16, 2018 11:22 PM, Aris Merchant 
 wrote:



​​

Okay, anyone using gmail didn't receive it. However, this can't just be

gmail's fault, because plenty of people who aren't using gmail also 
haven't


received it. I'm quite confused. It would be great if those who have

received the messages could look at the headers and see if anything 
looks


different from pre-problem OFF and the other lists, because this is just

weird.

-Aris

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 4:17 PM Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com

wrote:


same

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:41 AM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:


The original message? No, I haven't received it.

On 6/15/2018 4:45 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and 
we'll use


the honor system.

-Aris

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:43 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu

wrote:


On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I 
retract my


prior


CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."


Gratuitous: The email in question was delivered to my own inbox via

the



list

reasonably quickly after I sent it. I'm including the full headers

below



in

case it helps interpret anything:

Return-Path: agora-official-boun...@agoranomic.org

Received: via tmail-2007f.22 (invoked by user kerim) for

kerim+mail/agora;

Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT)

Received: from mxe29.s.uw.edu (mxe29.s.uw.edu [173.250.227.18])

by cg04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with

ESMTP



id w5EImGAx024904

for ke...@kerim.deskmail.washington.edu; Thu, 14 Jun 2018

11:48:16

-0700

Received: from vps.qoid.us ([71.19.146.223])

by mxe29.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with SMTP id

w5EIm5nl013556

for ke...@u.washington.edu; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:05 -0700

Received: (qmail 25986 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04

-



Received: from vps.qoid.us (127.0.0.1)

by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -

Delivered-To: agn-agora-offic...@agoranomic.org

Received: (qmail 25977 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02

-



Received: from mxout21.s.uw.edu (140.142.32.139)

by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -

Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu

[140.142.234.163])

by mxout21.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id

w5EIlNUY013073

(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256

verify=OK)

for agora-offic...@agoranomic.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23

-0700


X-Auth-Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu 
(hymn01.u.washington.edu


[140.142.9.110]) (authenticated authid=mailadm)

by smtp.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP

id



w5EIlNOo032150

(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)

for agora-offic...@agoranomic.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23

-0700



X-UW-Orig-Sender: mail...@smtp.washington.edu

X-Auth-Received: from [161.55.36.23] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via

HTTP;



Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 PDT

Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)

From: Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu

To: Agora Official agora-offic...@agoranomic.org

Message-ID: <

alpine.lrh.2.01.1806141147230.22...@hymn01.u.washington.edu>



User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20)

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

X-PMX-Version: 6.4.3.2751440, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409,

Antispam-Data: 2018.6.14.183916, AntiVirus-Engine: 5.49.1,

AntiVirus-Data:

2018.4.20.5491003

X-PMX-Server: mxe29.s.uw.edu

X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=, Probability=8%, Report=

REPLYTO_FROM_DIFF_ADDY 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05,

BODY_SIZE_6000_6999 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, 
DQ_S_H 0,


NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0,

NO_URI_HTTPS 0, RDNS_NXDOMAIN 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC

0,



SPF_NONE 0, __CP_NOT_1 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0,

__DQ_IP_FSO_LARGE 0, __DQ_S_HIST_1 0,

__DQ_S_HIST_2 0, __DQ_S_IP_MC_5_P 0, __DQ_S_IP_SD_1_P 0,

__HAS_FROM



0, __HAS_LIST_HEADER 0, __HAS_LIST_HELP 0, __HAS_LIST_ID 0,

__HAS_LIST_SUBSCRIBE 0,

__HAS_LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE 0, 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[ATMunn]

I did the same. I asked for people to respond if it was received, and 
there were no responses. In fact, I normally receive a copy of my own 
messages, and I didn't with this one.


On 6/17/2018 3:09 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Not sure if this helps, but I sent a test email to Official on Friday to try 
and narrow down the problem. It hasn't even showed up in the list at 
mail-archive.com, let alone been delivered to anybody.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 16, 2018 11:22 PM, Aris Merchant  
wrote:


​​

Okay, anyone using gmail didn't receive it. However, this can't just be

gmail's fault, because plenty of people who aren't using gmail also haven't

received it. I'm quite confused. It would be great if those who have

received the messages could look at the headers and see if anything looks

different from pre-problem OFF and the other lists, because this is just

weird.

-Aris

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 4:17 PM Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com

wrote:


same

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:41 AM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:


The original message? No, I haven't received it.

On 6/15/2018 4:45 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:


Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and we'll use

the honor system.

-Aris

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:43 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu

wrote:


On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:


Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my


prior


CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."


Gratuitous: The email in question was delivered to my own inbox via

the



list

reasonably quickly after I sent it. I'm including the full headers

below



in

case it helps interpret anything:

Return-Path: agora-official-boun...@agoranomic.org

Received: via tmail-2007f.22 (invoked by user kerim) for

kerim+mail/agora;

Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT)

Received: from mxe29.s.uw.edu (mxe29.s.uw.edu [173.250.227.18])

by cg04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with

ESMTP



id w5EImGAx024904

for ke...@kerim.deskmail.washington.edu; Thu, 14 Jun 2018

11:48:16

-0700

Received: from vps.qoid.us ([71.19.146.223])

by mxe29.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with SMTP id

w5EIm5nl013556

for ke...@u.washington.edu; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:05 -0700

Received: (qmail 25986 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04

-



Received: from vps.qoid.us (127.0.0.1)

by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -

Delivered-To: agn-agora-offic...@agoranomic.org

Received: (qmail 25977 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02

-



Received: from mxout21.s.uw.edu (140.142.32.139)

by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -

Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu

[140.142.234.163])

by mxout21.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id

w5EIlNUY013073

(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256

verify=OK)

for agora-offic...@agoranomic.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23

-0700



X-Auth-Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu

[140.142.9.110]) (authenticated authid=mailadm)

by smtp.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP

id



w5EIlNOo032150

(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)

for agora-offic...@agoranomic.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23

-0700



X-UW-Orig-Sender: mail...@smtp.washington.edu

X-Auth-Received: from [161.55.36.23] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via

HTTP;



Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 PDT

Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)

From: Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu

To: Agora Official agora-offic...@agoranomic.org

Message-ID: <

alpine.lrh.2.01.1806141147230.22...@hymn01.u.washington.edu>



User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20)

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

X-PMX-Version: 6.4.3.2751440, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409,

Antispam-Data: 2018.6.14.183916, AntiVirus-Engine: 5.49.1,

AntiVirus-Data:

2018.4.20.5491003

X-PMX-Server: mxe29.s.uw.edu

X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=, Probability=8%, Report=

REPLYTO_FROM_DIFF_ADDY 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05,

BODY_SIZE_6000_6999 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, DQ_S_H 0,

NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0,

NO_URI_HTTPS 0, RDNS_NXDOMAIN 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC

0,



SPF_NONE 0, __CP_NOT_1 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0,

__DQ_IP_FSO_LARGE 0, __DQ_S_HIST_1 0,

__DQ_S_HIST_2 0, __DQ_S_IP_MC_5_P 0, __DQ_S_IP_SD_1_P 0,

__HAS_FROM



0, __HAS_LIST_HEADER 0, __HAS_LIST_HELP 0, __HAS_LIST_ID 0,

__HAS_LIST_SUBSCRIBE 0,

__HAS_LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_REPLYTO 0,

__INVOICE_MULTILINGUAL 0, __LINES_OF_YELLING 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0,

__MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0,

__MIME_VERSION 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __SANE_MSGID 0,

__STOCK_PHRASE_24 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0,

__TO_NAME



0, __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0,

__TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __USER_AGENT 0

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[ATMunn]

Well, my email address is a gmail one, but I'm using Thunderbird to view 
the emails. If it's a problem with Gmail, then it's a problem with 
Google's servers, not the client.


On 6/16/2018 7:22 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Okay, anyone using gmail didn't receive it. However, this can't just be
gmail's fault, because plenty of people who aren't using gmail also haven't
received it. I'm quite confused. It would be great if those who have
received the messages could look at the headers and see if anything looks
different from pre-problem OFF and the other lists, because this is just
weird.

-Aris

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 4:17 PM Ned Strange 
wrote:


same

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:41 AM, ATMunn  wrote:

The original message? No, I haven't received it.

On 6/15/2018 4:45 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:


Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and we'll use
the honor system.

-Aris

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:43 PM Kerim Aydin 
wrote:




On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:


Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my


prior


CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."



Gratuitous:  The email in question was delivered to my own inbox via

the

list
reasonably quickly after I sent it.  I'm including the full headers

below

in
case it helps interpret anything:

Return-Path: 
Received: via tmail-2007f.22 (invoked by user kerim) for
kerim+mail/agora;
Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxe29.s.uw.edu (mxe29.s.uw.edu [173.250.227.18])
   by cg04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with

ESMTP

id w5EImGAx024904
   for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018
11:48:16
-0700
Received: from vps.qoid.us ([71.19.146.223])
   by mxe29.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with SMTP id
w5EIm5nl013556
   for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:05 -0700
Received: (qmail 25986 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04

-

Received: from vps.qoid.us (127.0.0.1)
 by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -
Delivered-To: agn-agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
Received: (qmail 25977 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02

-

Received: from mxout21.s.uw.edu (140.142.32.139)
by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -
Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu
[140.142.234.163])
by mxout21.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id
w5EIlNUY013073
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256
verify=OK)
for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23

-0700

X-Auth-Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu
[140.142.9.110]) (authenticated authid=mailadm)
by smtp.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP

id

w5EIlNOo032150
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23

-0700

X-UW-Orig-Sender: mail...@smtp.washington.edu
X-Auth-Received: from [161.55.36.23] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via

HTTP;

Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 PDT
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kerim Aydin 
To: Agora Official 
Message-ID: <

alpine.lrh.2.01.1806141147230.22...@hymn01.u.washington.edu>

User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
X-PMX-Version: 6.4.3.2751440, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409,
Antispam-Data: 2018.6.14.183916, AntiVirus-Engine: 5.49.1,
AntiVirus-Data:
2018.4.20.5491003
X-PMX-Server: mxe29.s.uw.edu
X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=, Probability=8%, Report=
REPLYTO_FROM_DIFF_ADDY 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05,
BODY_SIZE_6000_6999 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, DQ_S_H 0,
NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0,
   NO_URI_HTTPS 0, RDNS_NXDOMAIN 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC

0,

SPF_NONE 0, __CP_NOT_1 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0,
__DQ_IP_FSO_LARGE 0, __DQ_S_HIST_1 0,
   __DQ_S_HIST_2 0, __DQ_S_IP_MC_5_P 0, __DQ_S_IP_SD_1_P 0,

__HAS_FROM

0, __HAS_LIST_HEADER 0, __HAS_LIST_HELP 0, __HAS_LIST_ID 0,
__HAS_LIST_SUBSCRIBE 0,
   __HAS_LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_REPLYTO 0,
__INVOICE_MULTILINGUAL 0, __LINES_OF_YELLING 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0,
__MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0,
   __MIME_VERSION 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __SANE_MSGID 0,
__STOCK_PHRASE_24 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0,

__TO_NAME

0, __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0,
   __TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __USER_AGENT 0
Subject: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8050-8052
X-BeenThere: agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Agora Nomic reports, etc. \(PF\)"




List-Unsubscribe: <
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/agora-official>,

List-Archive: <
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/>
List-Post: 
List-Help: 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

Not sure if this helps, but I sent a test email to Official on Friday to try 
and narrow down the problem. It hasn't even showed up in the list at 
mail-archive.com, let alone been delivered to anybody.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 16, 2018 11:22 PM, Aris Merchant  
wrote:

> ​​
> 
> Okay, anyone using gmail didn't receive it. However, this can't just be
> 
> gmail's fault, because plenty of people who aren't using gmail also haven't
> 
> received it. I'm quite confused. It would be great if those who have
> 
> received the messages could look at the headers and see if anything looks
> 
> different from pre-problem OFF and the other lists, because this is just
> 
> weird.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 4:17 PM Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com
> 
> wrote:
> 
> > same
> > 
> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:41 AM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > The original message? No, I haven't received it.
> > > 
> > > On 6/15/2018 4:45 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and we'll use
> > > > 
> > > > the honor system.
> > > > 
> > > > -Aris
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:43 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
> > > > 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my
> > > > > 
> > > > > prior
> > > > > 
> > > > > > CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
> > > > > 
> > > > > Gratuitous: The email in question was delivered to my own inbox via
> > > > > 
> > > > > the
> > > 
> > > > > list
> > > > > 
> > > > > reasonably quickly after I sent it. I'm including the full headers
> > > > > 
> > > > > below
> > > 
> > > > > in
> > > > > 
> > > > > case it helps interpret anything:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Return-Path: agora-official-boun...@agoranomic.org
> > > > > 
> > > > > Received: via tmail-2007f.22 (invoked by user kerim) for
> > > > > 
> > > > > kerim+mail/agora;
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Received: from mxe29.s.uw.edu (mxe29.s.uw.edu [173.250.227.18])
> > > > > 
> > > > > by cg04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with
> > > > > 
> > > > > ESMTP
> > > 
> > > > > id w5EImGAx024904
> > > > > 
> > > > > for ke...@kerim.deskmail.washington.edu; Thu, 14 Jun 2018
> > > > > 
> > > > > 11:48:16
> > > > > 
> > > > > -0700
> > > > > 
> > > > > Received: from vps.qoid.us ([71.19.146.223])
> > > > > 
> > > > > by mxe29.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with SMTP id
> > > > > 
> > > > > w5EIm5nl013556
> > > > > 
> > > > > for ke...@u.washington.edu; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:05 -0700
> > > > > 
> > > > > Received: (qmail 25986 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04
> > > > > 
> > > > > -
> > > 
> > > > > Received: from vps.qoid.us (127.0.0.1)
> > > > > 
> > > > > by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -
> > > > > 
> > > > > Delivered-To: agn-agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> > > > > 
> > > > > Received: (qmail 25977 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02
> > > > > 
> > > > > -
> > > 
> > > > > Received: from mxout21.s.uw.edu (140.142.32.139)
> > > > > 
> > > > > by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -
> > > > > 
> > > > > Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu
> > > > > 
> > > > > [140.142.234.163])
> > > > > 
> > > > > by mxout21.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id
> > > > > 
> > > > > w5EIlNUY013073
> > > > > 
> > > > > (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256
> > > > > 
> > > > > verify=OK)
> > > > > 
> > > > > for agora-offic...@agoranomic.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23
> > > > > 
> > > > > -0700
> > > 
> > > > > X-Auth-Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu
> > > > > 
> > > > > [140.142.9.110]) (authenticated authid=mailadm)
> > > > > 
> > > > > by smtp.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP
> > > > > 
> > > > > id
> > > 
> > > > > w5EIlNOo032150
> > > > > 
> > > > > (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
> > > > > 
> > > > > for agora-offic...@agoranomic.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23
> > > > > 
> > > > > -0700
> > > 
> > > > > X-UW-Orig-Sender: mail...@smtp.washington.edu
> > > > > 
> > > > > X-Auth-Received: from [161.55.36.23] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via
> > > > > 
> > > > > HTTP;
> > > 
> > > > > Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 PDT
> > > > > 
> > > > > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > > 
> > > > > From: Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
> > > > > 
> > > > > To: Agora Official agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> > > > > 
> > > > > Message-ID: <
> > > > > 
> > > > > alpine.lrh.2.01.1806141147230.22...@hymn01.u.washington.edu>
> > > 
> > > > > User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20)
> > > > > 
> > > > > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > > > > 
> > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> > > > > 
> > > > > 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Aris Merchant]

Okay, anyone using gmail didn't receive it. However, this can't just be
gmail's fault, because plenty of people who aren't using gmail also haven't
received it. I'm quite confused. It would be great if those who have
received the messages could look at the headers and see if anything looks
different from pre-problem OFF and the other lists, because this is just
weird.

-Aris

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 4:17 PM Ned Strange 
wrote:

> same
>
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:41 AM, ATMunn  wrote:
> > The original message? No, I haven't received it.
> >
> > On 6/15/2018 4:45 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>
> >> Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and we'll use
> >> the honor system.
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:43 PM Kerim Aydin 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> 
>  Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my
> >>>
> >>> prior
> 
>  CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Gratuitous:  The email in question was delivered to my own inbox via
> the
> >>> list
> >>> reasonably quickly after I sent it.  I'm including the full headers
> below
> >>> in
> >>> case it helps interpret anything:
> >>>
> >>> Return-Path: 
> >>> Received: via tmail-2007f.22 (invoked by user kerim) for
> >>> kerim+mail/agora;
> >>> Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
> >>> Received: from mxe29.s.uw.edu (mxe29.s.uw.edu [173.250.227.18])
> >>>   by cg04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with
> ESMTP
> >>> id w5EImGAx024904
> >>>   for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018
> >>> 11:48:16
> >>> -0700
> >>> Received: from vps.qoid.us ([71.19.146.223])
> >>>   by mxe29.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with SMTP id
> >>> w5EIm5nl013556
> >>>   for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:05 -0700
> >>> Received: (qmail 25986 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04
> -
> >>> Received: from vps.qoid.us (127.0.0.1)
> >>> by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -
> >>> Delivered-To: agn-agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> >>> Received: (qmail 25977 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02
> -
> >>> Received: from mxout21.s.uw.edu (140.142.32.139)
> >>>by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -
> >>> Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu
> >>> [140.142.234.163])
> >>>by mxout21.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id
> >>>w5EIlNUY013073
> >>>(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256
> >>> verify=OK)
> >>>for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23
> -0700
> >>> X-Auth-Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu
> >>>[140.142.9.110]) (authenticated authid=mailadm)
> >>>by smtp.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP
> id
> >>>w5EIlNOo032150
> >>>(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
> >>>for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23
> -0700
> >>> X-UW-Orig-Sender: mail...@smtp.washington.edu
> >>> X-Auth-Received: from [161.55.36.23] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via
> HTTP;
> >>>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 PDT
> >>> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
> >>> From: Kerim Aydin 
> >>> To: Agora Official 
> >>> Message-ID: <
> alpine.lrh.2.01.1806141147230.22...@hymn01.u.washington.edu>
> >>> User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20)
> >>> MIME-Version: 1.0
> >>> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> >>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
> >>> X-PMX-Version: 6.4.3.2751440, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409,
> >>> Antispam-Data: 2018.6.14.183916, AntiVirus-Engine: 5.49.1,
> >>> AntiVirus-Data:
> >>> 2018.4.20.5491003
> >>> X-PMX-Server: mxe29.s.uw.edu
> >>> X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=, Probability=8%, Report=
> >>>REPLYTO_FROM_DIFF_ADDY 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05,
> >>> BODY_SIZE_6000_6999 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, DQ_S_H 0,
> >>> NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0,
> >>>   NO_URI_HTTPS 0, RDNS_NXDOMAIN 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC
> 0,
> >>> SPF_NONE 0, __CP_NOT_1 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0,
> >>> __DQ_IP_FSO_LARGE 0, __DQ_S_HIST_1 0,
> >>>   __DQ_S_HIST_2 0, __DQ_S_IP_MC_5_P 0, __DQ_S_IP_SD_1_P 0,
> __HAS_FROM
> >>> 0, __HAS_LIST_HEADER 0, __HAS_LIST_HELP 0, __HAS_LIST_ID 0,
> >>> __HAS_LIST_SUBSCRIBE 0,
> >>>   __HAS_LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_REPLYTO 0,
> >>> __INVOICE_MULTILINGUAL 0, __LINES_OF_YELLING 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0,
> >>> __MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0,
> >>>   __MIME_VERSION 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __SANE_MSGID 0,
> >>> __STOCK_PHRASE_24 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0,
> __TO_NAME
> >>> 0, __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0,
> >>>   __TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __USER_AGENT 0
> >>> Subject: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8050-8052
> >>> X-BeenThere: agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> >>> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
> >>> Precedence: list
> >>> List-Id: "Agora Nomic reports, etc. \(PF\)"
> >>>  
> 
> >>> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Ned Strange]

same

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:41 AM, ATMunn  wrote:
> The original message? No, I haven't received it.
>
> On 6/15/2018 4:45 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and we'll use
>> the honor system.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:43 PM Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

 Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my
>>>
>>> prior

 CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
>>>
>>>
>>> Gratuitous:  The email in question was delivered to my own inbox via the
>>> list
>>> reasonably quickly after I sent it.  I'm including the full headers below
>>> in
>>> case it helps interpret anything:
>>>
>>> Return-Path: 
>>> Received: via tmail-2007f.22 (invoked by user kerim) for
>>> kerim+mail/agora;
>>> Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
>>> Received: from mxe29.s.uw.edu (mxe29.s.uw.edu [173.250.227.18])
>>>   by cg04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP
>>> id w5EImGAx024904
>>>   for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018
>>> 11:48:16
>>> -0700
>>> Received: from vps.qoid.us ([71.19.146.223])
>>>   by mxe29.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with SMTP id
>>> w5EIm5nl013556
>>>   for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:05 -0700
>>> Received: (qmail 25986 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -
>>> Received: from vps.qoid.us (127.0.0.1)
>>> by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -
>>> Delivered-To: agn-agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
>>> Received: (qmail 25977 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -
>>> Received: from mxout21.s.uw.edu (140.142.32.139)
>>>by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -
>>> Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu
>>> [140.142.234.163])
>>>by mxout21.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id
>>>w5EIlNUY013073
>>>(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256
>>> verify=OK)
>>>for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700
>>> X-Auth-Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu
>>>[140.142.9.110]) (authenticated authid=mailadm)
>>>by smtp.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id
>>>w5EIlNOo032150
>>>(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
>>>for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700
>>> X-UW-Orig-Sender: mail...@smtp.washington.edu
>>> X-Auth-Received: from [161.55.36.23] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via HTTP;
>>>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 PDT
>>> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
>>> From: Kerim Aydin 
>>> To: Agora Official 
>>> Message-ID: 
>>> User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20)
>>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>>> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
>>> X-PMX-Version: 6.4.3.2751440, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409,
>>> Antispam-Data: 2018.6.14.183916, AntiVirus-Engine: 5.49.1,
>>> AntiVirus-Data:
>>> 2018.4.20.5491003
>>> X-PMX-Server: mxe29.s.uw.edu
>>> X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=, Probability=8%, Report=
>>>REPLYTO_FROM_DIFF_ADDY 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05,
>>> BODY_SIZE_6000_6999 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, DQ_S_H 0,
>>> NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0,
>>>   NO_URI_HTTPS 0, RDNS_NXDOMAIN 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0,
>>> SPF_NONE 0, __CP_NOT_1 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0,
>>> __DQ_IP_FSO_LARGE 0, __DQ_S_HIST_1 0,
>>>   __DQ_S_HIST_2 0, __DQ_S_IP_MC_5_P 0, __DQ_S_IP_SD_1_P 0, __HAS_FROM
>>> 0, __HAS_LIST_HEADER 0, __HAS_LIST_HELP 0, __HAS_LIST_ID 0,
>>> __HAS_LIST_SUBSCRIBE 0,
>>>   __HAS_LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_REPLYTO 0,
>>> __INVOICE_MULTILINGUAL 0, __LINES_OF_YELLING 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0,
>>> __MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0,
>>>   __MIME_VERSION 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __SANE_MSGID 0,
>>> __STOCK_PHRASE_24 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NAME
>>> 0, __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0,
>>>   __TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __USER_AGENT 0
>>> Subject: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8050-8052
>>> X-BeenThere: agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
>>> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
>>> Precedence: list
>>> List-Id: "Agora Nomic reports, etc. \(PF\)"
>>> >>>

>>> List-Unsubscribe: <
>>> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/agora-official>,
>>>
>>> List-Archive: <
>>> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/>
>>> List-Post: 
>>> List-Help: 
>>> List-Subscribe: <
>>> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-official>,
>>>
>>> Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
>>> Errors-To: agora-official-boun...@agoranomic.org
>>> Sender: "agora-official" 
>>> X-Sophos-SenderHistory:
>>>
>>> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[ATMunn]

The original message? No, I haven't received it.

On 6/15/2018 4:45 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and we'll use
the honor system.

-Aris

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:43 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:




On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my

prior

CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."


Gratuitous:  The email in question was delivered to my own inbox via the
list
reasonably quickly after I sent it.  I'm including the full headers below
in
case it helps interpret anything:

Return-Path: 
Received: via tmail-2007f.22 (invoked by user kerim) for kerim+mail/agora;
Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxe29.s.uw.edu (mxe29.s.uw.edu [173.250.227.18])
  by cg04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP
id w5EImGAx024904
  for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:16
-0700
Received: from vps.qoid.us ([71.19.146.223])
  by mxe29.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with SMTP id
w5EIm5nl013556
  for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:05 -0700
Received: (qmail 25986 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -
Received: from vps.qoid.us (127.0.0.1)
by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -
Delivered-To: agn-agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
Received: (qmail 25977 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -
Received: from mxout21.s.uw.edu (140.142.32.139)
   by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -
Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.234.163])
   by mxout21.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id
   w5EIlNUY013073
   (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK)
   for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700
X-Auth-Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu
   [140.142.9.110]) (authenticated authid=mailadm)
   by smtp.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id
   w5EIlNOo032150
   (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
   for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700
X-UW-Orig-Sender: mail...@smtp.washington.edu
X-Auth-Received: from [161.55.36.23] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via HTTP;
   Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 PDT
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kerim Aydin 
To: Agora Official 
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
X-PMX-Version: 6.4.3.2751440, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409,
Antispam-Data: 2018.6.14.183916, AntiVirus-Engine: 5.49.1, AntiVirus-Data:
2018.4.20.5491003
X-PMX-Server: mxe29.s.uw.edu
X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=, Probability=8%, Report=
   REPLYTO_FROM_DIFF_ADDY 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05,
BODY_SIZE_6000_6999 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, DQ_S_H 0,
NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0,
  NO_URI_HTTPS 0, RDNS_NXDOMAIN 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0,
SPF_NONE 0, __CP_NOT_1 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0,
__DQ_IP_FSO_LARGE 0, __DQ_S_HIST_1 0,
  __DQ_S_HIST_2 0, __DQ_S_IP_MC_5_P 0, __DQ_S_IP_SD_1_P 0, __HAS_FROM
0, __HAS_LIST_HEADER 0, __HAS_LIST_HELP 0, __HAS_LIST_ID 0,
__HAS_LIST_SUBSCRIBE 0,
  __HAS_LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_REPLYTO 0,
__INVOICE_MULTILINGUAL 0, __LINES_OF_YELLING 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0,
__MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0,
  __MIME_VERSION 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __SANE_MSGID 0,
__STOCK_PHRASE_24 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NAME
0, __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0,
  __TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __USER_AGENT 0
Subject: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8050-8052
X-BeenThere: agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Agora Nomic reports, etc. \(PF\)" 


List-Unsubscribe: <
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/agora-official>,
   
List-Archive: <
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/>
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: <
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-official>,
   
Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Errors-To: agora-official-boun...@agoranomic.org
Sender: "agora-official" 
X-Sophos-SenderHistory:
ip=71.19.146.223,fs=117188,da=5528554,mc=8,sc=0,hc=8,sp=0,fso=5001784,re=1,sd=4,hd=8


I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt Proposals 8050-8052 as follows.
Quorum is 6 for all of these proposals.

[Remainder of message cut]



On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:34 PM Kerim Aydin 

wrote:





Er, might want to check the Proposal # in the CFJ statement...

I'll re-send the resolution to converge the gamestate in case it failed
before.  I think the only things I did for zombies were

announcements-of-

intent so I don't think the time 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Ørjan Johansen]

Me too.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Corona wrote:


I'm in the same situation.

~Corona

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:53 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:48 PM Kerim Aydin 
wrote:




On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my

prior

CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."


Except now - haha - I made a second, hopefully successful attempt to
resolve a
few moments *before* this second CFJ came in, so this would now be true

if

that second attempt succeeded - sorry about that...



I haven't received any OFF traffic since this [1] report. Is anyone else in
the same situation? Frankly, this is rather terrifying.

[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/
msg08914.html

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Ørjan Johansen]

I don't seem to have it.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:


Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and we'll use
the honor system.

-Aris

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:43 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:




On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my

prior

CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."


Gratuitous:  The email in question was delivered to my own inbox via the
list
reasonably quickly after I sent it.  I'm including the full headers below
in
case it helps interpret anything:

Return-Path: 
Received: via tmail-2007f.22 (invoked by user kerim) for kerim+mail/agora;
Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxe29.s.uw.edu (mxe29.s.uw.edu [173.250.227.18])
 by cg04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP
id w5EImGAx024904
 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:16
-0700
Received: from vps.qoid.us ([71.19.146.223])
 by mxe29.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with SMTP id
w5EIm5nl013556
 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:05 -0700
Received: (qmail 25986 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -
Received: from vps.qoid.us (127.0.0.1)
   by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -
Delivered-To: agn-agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
Received: (qmail 25977 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -
Received: from mxout21.s.uw.edu (140.142.32.139)
  by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -
Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.234.163])
  by mxout21.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id
  w5EIlNUY013073
  (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK)
  for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700
X-Auth-Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu
  [140.142.9.110]) (authenticated authid=mailadm)
  by smtp.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id
  w5EIlNOo032150
  (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
  for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700
X-UW-Orig-Sender: mail...@smtp.washington.edu
X-Auth-Received: from [161.55.36.23] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via HTTP;
  Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 PDT
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kerim Aydin 
To: Agora Official 
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
X-PMX-Version: 6.4.3.2751440, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409,
Antispam-Data: 2018.6.14.183916, AntiVirus-Engine: 5.49.1, AntiVirus-Data:
2018.4.20.5491003
X-PMX-Server: mxe29.s.uw.edu
X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=, Probability=8%, Report=
  REPLYTO_FROM_DIFF_ADDY 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05,
BODY_SIZE_6000_6999 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, DQ_S_H 0,
NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0,
 NO_URI_HTTPS 0, RDNS_NXDOMAIN 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0,
SPF_NONE 0, __CP_NOT_1 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0,
__DQ_IP_FSO_LARGE 0, __DQ_S_HIST_1 0,
 __DQ_S_HIST_2 0, __DQ_S_IP_MC_5_P 0, __DQ_S_IP_SD_1_P 0, __HAS_FROM
0, __HAS_LIST_HEADER 0, __HAS_LIST_HELP 0, __HAS_LIST_ID 0,
__HAS_LIST_SUBSCRIBE 0,
 __HAS_LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_REPLYTO 0,
__INVOICE_MULTILINGUAL 0, __LINES_OF_YELLING 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0,
__MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0,
 __MIME_VERSION 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __SANE_MSGID 0,
__STOCK_PHRASE_24 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NAME
0, __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0,
 __TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __USER_AGENT 0
Subject: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8050-8052
X-BeenThere: agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Agora Nomic reports, etc. \(PF\)" 


List-Unsubscribe: <
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/agora-official>,
  
List-Archive: <
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/>
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: <
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-official>,
  
Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Errors-To: agora-official-boun...@agoranomic.org
Sender: "agora-official" 
X-Sophos-SenderHistory:
ip=71.19.146.223,fs=117188,da=5528554,mc=8,sc=0,hc=8,sp=0,fso=5001784,re=1,sd=4,hd=8


I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt Proposals 8050-8052 as follows.
Quorum is 6 for all of these proposals.

[Remainder of message cut]



On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:34 PM Kerim Aydin 

wrote:





Er, might want to check the Proposal # in the CFJ statement...

I'll re-send the resolution to converge the gamestate in case it failed
before.  I think the only things I did for zombies were

announcements-of-

intent so I don't think the time difference breaks anything (yet!)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:


I'm paranoid.

*adjusts tinfoil hat*


Are you sure that's genuine tin, and not the aluminum substitute the world 
government has stealthily fooled nearly everyone into using?


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I am in the same boat. From now until this is resolved, I would request
that all messages be sent to BAK or BUS, as opposed to OFF.

On 06/15/2018 04:53 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:48 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my
>> prior
>>> CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
>> Except now - haha - I made a second, hopefully successful attempt to
>> resolve a
>> few moments *before* this second CFJ came in, so this would now be true if
>> that second attempt succeeded - sorry about that...
>
> I haven't received any OFF traffic since this [1] report. Is anyone else in
> the same situation? Frankly, this is rather terrifying.
>
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08914.html
>
> -Aris
>
>>

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I favor this CFJ.

On 06/15/2018 04:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my prior
> CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:34 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>>
>> Er, might want to check the Proposal # in the CFJ statement...
>>
>> I'll re-send the resolution to converge the gamestate in case it failed
>> before.  I think the only things I did for zombies were announcements-of-
>> intent so I don't think the time difference breaks anything (yet!)
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> Just checked the unofficial OFF mail archive. The message got eaten on
>> its
>>> way to me, and maybe some other people, but definitely went to, which is
>>> super scary.
>>>
>>> I CFJ "Proposal 1905 has been resolved."
>>> Arguments:
>>>
>>> Per CFJ 1905, non-receipt of a message by those who have arraigned to
>>> receive messages via the forum is grounds to regard actions taken therein
>>> as invalid. My spam filter didn't eat it (I've checked, and it's also set
>>> never to eat Agora stuff) so it probably never entered my technical
>> domain
>>> of control.
>>> ---
>>>
>>> We really need to figure out these server problems ASAP.
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Aris Merchant <
>>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Did you ever resolve proposal 8050? I certainly can't find a
>> resolution...
 -Aris

 On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:09 AM Kerim Aydin 
 wrote:

>
> You couldn't have anyway because PLEDGES CAN NO LONGER BE DESTROYED,
> WITHOUT OBJECTION OR OTHERWISE.
>
> They can't be destroyed at all because they're no longer assets.
>> Please
> read
> Proposal 8050 - the only way for a pledge to end is to time out (and
>> that
> doesn't outright "destroy" it, it just makes it untracked and
> non-punishable).
>
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Corona wrote:
>> T.T I couldn't have acted on that intent any earlier than next
>> Tuesday,
> and
>> the dynasty will definitely be over by then.
>>
>> ~Corona
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> wrote:
>>> I object to Corona’s attempt, because the dynasty isn’t over just
>> yet
> (will
>>> be soon though).
>>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 06:35, Corona  wrote:
 Without objection I intend to retract every pledge I own. (the
> BlogNomic
 one is no longer useful, too)

 ¯Corona

 On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:02 AM, Ned Strange <
> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
 wrote:

> Without objection I intend to retract each pledge I own.
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, Kerim Aydin <
> ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
>>
>> The below pledge list from the June 3 Referee Report
> self-ratified
 prior
>> to Proposal 8050 taking effect.  The pledge dates (date
> tracking now
>> required by the Notary) don't self-ratify, but I did go
>> back and
 confirm.
>> Searching for 'pledge' in public archives back to March
> revealed no
 other
>> recent pledges.  Pledges older than 60 days no longer
>> require
>>> tracking.
>> =the Referee, whose next report will be shorter=
>>
>>
>> PLEDGES (self-ratifying list of assets)
>>
>> == Trigon - Created 01 Jun 2018 07:35:31
>> I pledge to use as much integrity as is possible whenever I
> generate
>> random numbers.
>>
>>
>> == Corona - Created 27 May 2018 17:29:28
>> I pledge to do all of the following in Blognomic's current
> dynasty:
>> -always ahoy
>> Gams
>>
>> -call hunts most of the time
>> -not change derrick’s or Cuddlebeam’s position if they
>> perform
> their
> duties
>> adequately (scrubbing, joining hunts if healthy…)
>> -scrub the decks whenever I
>> am online and can do so
>>
>> -generally work toward the preservation of the ship and the
> lives of
>> sailors, and maximizing profits
>>
>>
>> == G. - Created 10 May 2018 15:39:57
>> I pledge that I will not make any bids on behalf of zombies
>> in
> the
>>> May
>> 2018 zombie auction.
>>
>>
>> ===(below pledges were created prior to 01 Apr 2018)===
>>
>> Quazie -
>> I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
>> correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong
>> on
>> Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
>> the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be
>> fully
>> self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules
>> in
>> order to understand the 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Aris Merchant]

How is your email set up?

-Aris

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:54 PM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> I don't believe I've received this second attempt either.
>
> -twg
> ​​
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>
> On June 15, 2018 8:45 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
> > ​​
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >
> > > Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my
> prior
> > >
> > > CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
> >
> > Except now - haha - I made a second, hopefully successful attempt to
> resolve a
> >
> > few moments before this second CFJ came in, so this would now be true if
> >
> > that second attempt succeeded - sorry about that...
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Corona]

I'm in the same situation.

~Corona

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:53 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:48 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my
> > prior
> > > CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
> >
> > Except now - haha - I made a second, hopefully successful attempt to
> > resolve a
> > few moments *before* this second CFJ came in, so this would now be true
> if
> > that second attempt succeeded - sorry about that...
>
>
> I haven't received any OFF traffic since this [1] report. Is anyone else in
> the same situation? Frankly, this is rather terrifying.
>
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/
> msg08914.html
>
> -Aris
>
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Kerim Aydin]

oh my, taral was the distributor before omd.  I think the change was around 
2006.


On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Okay, I'm starting to develop a theory here. The agora-official list
> is configured differently than the other two. It's owner is listed as
> "taralx at gmail.com" whereas the others are owned by "owner-spamfilt
> at agoranomic.org". I think we need to send a "something weird is
> happening" report to omd.
> 
> -Aris
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:54 PM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe I've received this second attempt either.
> >
> > -twg
> >
> >
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> >
> > On June 15, 2018 8:45 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my 
> > > > prior
> > > >
> > > > CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
> > >
> > > Except now - haha - I made a second, hopefully successful attempt to 
> > > resolve a
> > >
> > > few moments before this second CFJ came in, so this would now be true if
> > >
> > > that second attempt succeeded - sorry about that...
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Aris Merchant]

Okay, I'm starting to develop a theory here. The agora-official list
is configured differently than the other two. It's owner is listed as
"taralx at gmail.com" whereas the others are owned by "owner-spamfilt
at agoranomic.org". I think we need to send a "something weird is
happening" report to omd.

-Aris
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:54 PM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>
> I don't believe I've received this second attempt either.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>
> On June 15, 2018 8:45 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >
> > > Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my prior
> > >
> > > CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
> >
> > Except now - haha - I made a second, hopefully successful attempt to 
> > resolve a
> >
> > few moments before this second CFJ came in, so this would now be true if
> >
> > that second attempt succeeded - sorry about that...
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Kerim Aydin]

Ugh.  I'll send it to Business and BAK.

OFF is still the one where the mailman archive is broken, too.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I don't believe I've received this second attempt either.
> 
> -twg
> ​​
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> 
> On June 15, 2018 8:45 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> > ​​
> > 
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > 
> > > Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my prior
> > > 
> > > CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
> > 
> > Except now - haha - I made a second, hopefully successful attempt to 
> > resolve a
> > 
> > few moments before this second CFJ came in, so this would now be true if
> > 
> > that second attempt succeeded - sorry about that...
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

I don't believe I've received this second attempt either.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 15, 2018 8:45 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> 
> > Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my prior
> > 
> > CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
> 
> Except now - haha - I made a second, hopefully successful attempt to resolve a
> 
> few moments before this second CFJ came in, so this would now be true if
> 
> that second attempt succeeded - sorry about that...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

Sorry, was about to get around to responding to this chain.

I have NOT received the email resolving proposals 8050-8052. It's not in my 
spam folder either.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 15, 2018 8:45 PM, Aris Merchant  
wrote:

> ​​
> 
> Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and we'll use
> 
> the honor system.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:43 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > 
> > > Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my
> > > 
> > > prior
> > > 
> > > CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
> > 
> > Gratuitous: The email in question was delivered to my own inbox via the
> > 
> > list
> > 
> > reasonably quickly after I sent it. I'm including the full headers below
> > 
> > in
> > 
> > case it helps interpret anything:
> > 
> > Return-Path: agora-official-boun...@agoranomic.org
> > 
> > Received: via tmail-2007f.22 (invoked by user kerim) for kerim+mail/agora;
> > 
> > Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
> > 
> > Received: from mxe29.s.uw.edu (mxe29.s.uw.edu [173.250.227.18])
> > 
> > by cg04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP
> > 
> > id w5EImGAx024904
> > 
> > for ke...@kerim.deskmail.washington.edu; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:16
> > 
> > -0700
> > 
> > Received: from vps.qoid.us ([71.19.146.223])
> > 
> > by mxe29.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with SMTP id
> > 
> > w5EIm5nl013556
> > 
> > for ke...@u.washington.edu; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:05 -0700
> > 
> > Received: (qmail 25986 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -
> > 
> > Received: from vps.qoid.us (127.0.0.1)
> > 
> > by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -
> > 
> > Delivered-To: agn-agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> > 
> > Received: (qmail 25977 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -
> > 
> > Received: from mxout21.s.uw.edu (140.142.32.139)
> > 
> > by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -
> > 
> > Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.234.163])
> > 
> > by mxout21.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id
> > 
> > w5EIlNUY013073
> > 
> > (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK)
> > 
> > for agora-offic...@agoranomic.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700
> > 
> > X-Auth-Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu
> > 
> > [140.142.9.110]) (authenticated authid=mailadm)
> > 
> > by smtp.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id
> > 
> > w5EIlNOo032150
> > 
> > (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
> > 
> > for agora-offic...@agoranomic.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700
> > 
> > X-UW-Orig-Sender: mail...@smtp.washington.edu
> > 
> > X-Auth-Received: from [161.55.36.23] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via HTTP;
> > 
> > Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 PDT
> > 
> > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
> > 
> > From: Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
> > 
> > To: Agora Official agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> > 
> > Message-ID: alpine.lrh.2.01.1806141147230.22...@hymn01.u.washington.edu
> > 
> > User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20)
> > 
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > 
> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> > 
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
> > 
> > X-PMX-Version: 6.4.3.2751440, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409,
> > 
> > Antispam-Data: 2018.6.14.183916, AntiVirus-Engine: 5.49.1, AntiVirus-Data:
> > 
> > 2018.4.20.5491003
> > 
> > X-PMX-Server: mxe29.s.uw.edu
> > 
> > X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=, Probability=8%, Report=
> > 
> > REPLYTO_FROM_DIFF_ADDY 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05,
> > 
> > BODY_SIZE_6000_6999 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, DQ_S_H 0,
> > 
> > NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0,
> > 
> > NO_URI_HTTPS 0, RDNS_NXDOMAIN 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0,
> > 
> > SPF_NONE 0, __CP_NOT_1 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0,
> > 
> > __DQ_IP_FSO_LARGE 0, __DQ_S_HIST_1 0,
> > 
> > __DQ_S_HIST_2 0, __DQ_S_IP_MC_5_P 0, __DQ_S_IP_SD_1_P 0, __HAS_FROM
> > 
> > 0, __HAS_LIST_HEADER 0, __HAS_LIST_HELP 0, __HAS_LIST_ID 0,
> > 
> > __HAS_LIST_SUBSCRIBE 0,
> > 
> > __HAS_LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_REPLYTO 0,
> > 
> > __INVOICE_MULTILINGUAL 0, __LINES_OF_YELLING 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0,
> > 
> > __MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0,
> > 
> > __MIME_VERSION 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __SANE_MSGID 0,
> > 
> > __STOCK_PHRASE_24 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NAME
> > 
> > 0, __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0,
> > 
> > __TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __USER_AGENT 0
> > 
> > Subject: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8050-8052
> > 
> > X-BeenThere: agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> > 
> > X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
> > 
> > Precedence: list
> > 
> > List-Id: "Agora Nomic reports, etc. (PF)"  > 
> > > 
> > 
> > List-Unsubscribe: <
> > 
> > http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/agora-official>,
> > 
> > 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my prior
> CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."

Except now - haha - I made a second, hopefully successful attempt to resolve a
few moments *before* this second CFJ came in, so this would now be true if
that second attempt succeeded - sorry about that...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Cuddle Beam]

https://i.gyazo.com/bf99d85e20f8a18ef447acdb3b4339ae.png

For some reason it's hitting my spam inbox.

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and we'll use
> the honor system.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:43 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my
> > prior
> > > CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
> >
> > Gratuitous:  The email in question was delivered to my own inbox via the
> > list
> > reasonably quickly after I sent it.  I'm including the full headers below
> > in
> > case it helps interpret anything:
> >
> > Return-Path: 
> > Received: via tmail-2007f.22 (invoked by user kerim) for
> kerim+mail/agora;
> > Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
> > Received: from mxe29.s.uw.edu (mxe29.s.uw.edu [173.250.227.18])
> >  by cg04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP
> > id w5EImGAx024904
> >  for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018
> 11:48:16
> > -0700
> > Received: from vps.qoid.us ([71.19.146.223])
> >  by mxe29.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with SMTP id
> > w5EIm5nl013556
> >  for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:05 -0700
> > Received: (qmail 25986 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -
> > Received: from vps.qoid.us (127.0.0.1)
> >by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -
> > Delivered-To: agn-agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> > Received: (qmail 25977 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -
> > Received: from mxout21.s.uw.edu (140.142.32.139)
> >   by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -
> > Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu
> [140.142.234.163])
> >   by mxout21.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id
> >   w5EIlNUY013073
> >   (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256
> verify=OK)
> >   for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700
> > X-Auth-Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu
> >   [140.142.9.110]) (authenticated authid=mailadm)
> >   by smtp.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id
> >   w5EIlNOo032150
> >   (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
> >   for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700
> > X-UW-Orig-Sender: mail...@smtp.washington.edu
> > X-Auth-Received: from [161.55.36.23] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via
> HTTP;
> >   Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 PDT
> > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Kerim Aydin 
> > To: Agora Official 
> > Message-ID:  >
> > User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20)
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
> > X-PMX-Version: 6.4.3.2751440, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409,
> > Antispam-Data: 2018.6.14.183916, AntiVirus-Engine: 5.49.1,
> AntiVirus-Data:
> > 2018.4.20.5491003
> > X-PMX-Server: mxe29.s.uw.edu
> > X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=, Probability=8%, Report=
> >   REPLYTO_FROM_DIFF_ADDY 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05,
> > BODY_SIZE_6000_6999 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, DQ_S_H 0,
> > NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0,
> >  NO_URI_HTTPS 0, RDNS_NXDOMAIN 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0,
> > SPF_NONE 0, __CP_NOT_1 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0,
> > __DQ_IP_FSO_LARGE 0, __DQ_S_HIST_1 0,
> >  __DQ_S_HIST_2 0, __DQ_S_IP_MC_5_P 0, __DQ_S_IP_SD_1_P 0, __HAS_FROM
> > 0, __HAS_LIST_HEADER 0, __HAS_LIST_HELP 0, __HAS_LIST_ID 0,
> > __HAS_LIST_SUBSCRIBE 0,
> >  __HAS_LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_REPLYTO 0,
> > __INVOICE_MULTILINGUAL 0, __LINES_OF_YELLING 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0,
> > __MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0,
> >  __MIME_VERSION 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __SANE_MSGID 0,
> > __STOCK_PHRASE_24 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NAME
> > 0, __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0,
> >  __TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __USER_AGENT 0
> > Subject: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8050-8052
> > X-BeenThere: agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> > X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
> > Precedence: list
> > List-Id: "Agora Nomic reports, etc. \(PF\)" <
> agora-official.agoranomic.org
> > >
> > List-Unsubscribe: <
> > http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/agora-official>,
> >   
> > List-Archive: <
> > http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/>
> > List-Post: 
> > List-Help: 
> > List-Subscribe: <
> > http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-official>,
> >   
> > Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
> > Errors-To: agora-official-boun...@agoranomic.org
> > Sender: "agora-official" 
> > X-Sophos-SenderHistory:
> > 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Aris Merchant]

Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and we'll use
the honor system.

-Aris

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:43 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my
> prior
> > CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
>
> Gratuitous:  The email in question was delivered to my own inbox via the
> list
> reasonably quickly after I sent it.  I'm including the full headers below
> in
> case it helps interpret anything:
>
> Return-Path: 
> Received: via tmail-2007f.22 (invoked by user kerim) for kerim+mail/agora;
> Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: from mxe29.s.uw.edu (mxe29.s.uw.edu [173.250.227.18])
>  by cg04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP
> id w5EImGAx024904
>  for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:16
> -0700
> Received: from vps.qoid.us ([71.19.146.223])
>  by mxe29.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with SMTP id
> w5EIm5nl013556
>  for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:05 -0700
> Received: (qmail 25986 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -
> Received: from vps.qoid.us (127.0.0.1)
>by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -
> Delivered-To: agn-agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> Received: (qmail 25977 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -
> Received: from mxout21.s.uw.edu (140.142.32.139)
>   by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -
> Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.234.163])
>   by mxout21.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id
>   w5EIlNUY013073
>   (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK)
>   for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700
> X-Auth-Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu
>   [140.142.9.110]) (authenticated authid=mailadm)
>   by smtp.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id
>   w5EIlNOo032150
>   (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
>   for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700
> X-UW-Orig-Sender: mail...@smtp.washington.edu
> X-Auth-Received: from [161.55.36.23] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via HTTP;
>   Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 PDT
> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Kerim Aydin 
> To: Agora Official 
> Message-ID: 
> User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
> X-PMX-Version: 6.4.3.2751440, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409,
> Antispam-Data: 2018.6.14.183916, AntiVirus-Engine: 5.49.1, AntiVirus-Data:
> 2018.4.20.5491003
> X-PMX-Server: mxe29.s.uw.edu
> X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=, Probability=8%, Report=
>   REPLYTO_FROM_DIFF_ADDY 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05,
> BODY_SIZE_6000_6999 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, DQ_S_H 0,
> NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0,
>  NO_URI_HTTPS 0, RDNS_NXDOMAIN 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0,
> SPF_NONE 0, __CP_NOT_1 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0,
> __DQ_IP_FSO_LARGE 0, __DQ_S_HIST_1 0,
>  __DQ_S_HIST_2 0, __DQ_S_IP_MC_5_P 0, __DQ_S_IP_SD_1_P 0, __HAS_FROM
> 0, __HAS_LIST_HEADER 0, __HAS_LIST_HELP 0, __HAS_LIST_ID 0,
> __HAS_LIST_SUBSCRIBE 0,
>  __HAS_LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_REPLYTO 0,
> __INVOICE_MULTILINGUAL 0, __LINES_OF_YELLING 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0,
> __MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0,
>  __MIME_VERSION 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __SANE_MSGID 0,
> __STOCK_PHRASE_24 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NAME
> 0, __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0,
>  __TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __USER_AGENT 0
> Subject: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8050-8052
> X-BeenThere: agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
> Precedence: list
> List-Id: "Agora Nomic reports, etc. \(PF\)"  >
> List-Unsubscribe: <
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/agora-official>,
>   
> List-Archive: <
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/>
> List-Post: 
> List-Help: 
> List-Subscribe: <
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-official>,
>   
> Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
> Errors-To: agora-official-boun...@agoranomic.org
> Sender: "agora-official" 
> X-Sophos-SenderHistory:
> ip=71.19.146.223,fs=117188,da=5528554,mc=8,sc=0,hc=8,sp=0,fso=5001784,re=1,sd=4,hd=8
>
>
> I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt Proposals 8050-8052 as follows.
> Quorum is 6 for all of these proposals.
>
> [Remainder of message cut]
>
>
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:34 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Er, might want to check the Proposal # in the CFJ statement...
> > >
> > > I'll re-send the resolution to converge the gamestate in case it failed
> > 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Cuddle Beam]

I'm paranoid.

*adjusts tinfoil hat*

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 17:40, Corona  wrote:

> T.T I couldn't have acted on that intent any earlier than next Tuesday, and
> the dynasty will definitely be over by then.
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
> > I object to Corona’s attempt, because the dynasty isn’t over just yet
> (will
> > be soon though).
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 06:35, Corona 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Without objection I intend to retract every pledge I own. (the
> BlogNomic
> > > one is no longer useful, too)
> > >
> > > ~Corona
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:02 AM, Ned Strange  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Without objection I intend to retract each pledge I own.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, Kerim Aydin  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The below pledge list from the June 3 Referee Report self-ratified
> > > prior
> > > > > to Proposal 8050 taking effect.  The pledge dates (date tracking
> now
> > > > > required by the Notary) don't self-ratify, but I did go back and
> > > confirm.
> > > > > Searching for 'pledge' in public archives back to March revealed no
> > > other
> > > > > recent pledges.  Pledges older than 60 days no longer require
> > tracking.
> > > > >
> > > > > =the Referee, whose next report will be shorter=
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > PLEDGES (self-ratifying list of assets)
> > > > >
> > > > > == Trigon - Created 01 Jun 2018 07:35:31
> > > > > I pledge to use as much integrity as is possible whenever I
> generate
> > > > > random numbers.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > == Corona - Created 27 May 2018 17:29:28
> > > > > I pledge to do all of the following in Blognomic's current dynasty:
> > > > >
> > > > > -always ahoy
> > > > > Gams
> > > > >
> > > > > -call hunts most of the time
> > > > > -not change derrick’s or Cuddlebeam’s position if they perform
> their
> > > > duties
> > > > > adequately (scrubbing, joining hunts if healthy…)
> > > > > -scrub the decks whenever I
> > > > > am online and can do so
> > > > >
> > > > > -generally work toward the preservation of the ship and the lives
> of
> > > > > sailors, and maximizing profits
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > == G. - Created 10 May 2018 15:39:57
> > > > > I pledge that I will not make any bids on behalf of zombies in the
> > May
> > > > > 2018 zombie auction.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ===(below pledges were created prior to 01 Apr 2018)===
> > > > >
> > > > > Quazie -
> > > > > I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
> > > > > correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
> > > > > Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
> > > > > the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
> > > > > self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
> > > > > order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
> > > > > source info in the explanation).
> > > > >
> > > > > V.J Rada -
> > > > > I pledge not to make any thread titles completely unrelated to
> > > > > the email's content, nor use any agency or other mechanism to
> > > > > attempt to gain control of any player at the exclusion of all
> > > > > other players.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gaelan (14 Sep 2017) -
> > > > > I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
> > > > > proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless
> > > > > the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed.
> > > > >
> > > > > nichdel -
> > > > > I pledge to vote AGAINST on all proposals created or pended by
> > > > > Cuddle Beam.
> > > > >
> > > > > nichdel -
> > > > > I pledge to Object to all intentions by Cuddle Beam that I can
> > > > > object to.
> > > > >
> > > > > nichdel -
> > > > > I pledge to give a trust token and 5 shinies (as soon as
> > > > > possible) to any other player who also performs the above three
> > > > > pledges, except Cuddle Beam.
> > > > >
> > > > > nichdel -
> > > > > I pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T.
> > > > >
> > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
> > > > > I too pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T.
> > > > >
> > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
> > > > > I...pledge to fix the margins, if the issue is explained to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
> > > > > I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it
> is
> > > > > still possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cuddlebeam -
> > > > > I pledge to hook people up in a reasonable amount of time,
> according
> > > > > to the message above, during what's left of the current month and
> > > > > November.
> > > > > [Referee's note: This pledge refers to the message listed
> > > > > athttps://www.mail-archive.com/agora
> > > > > business at agoranomic.org/msg30230.html]
> > > > >
> > > > > V.J. Rada -
> > > > > I pledge to give a win and a black ribbon to everyone who votes for
> > > > > "hopefully you guys all vote for this" if that passes.
> > > > >
> > > > > o - (Nov 7, '17)
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Kerim Aydin]

Er, might want to check the Proposal # in the CFJ statement...

I'll re-send the resolution to converge the gamestate in case it failed
before.  I think the only things I did for zombies were announcements-of-
intent so I don't think the time difference breaks anything (yet!)


On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Just checked the unofficial OFF mail archive. The message got eaten on its
> way to me, and maybe some other people, but definitely went to, which is
> super scary.
> 
> I CFJ "Proposal 1905 has been resolved."
> Arguments:
> 
> Per CFJ 1905, non-receipt of a message by those who have arraigned to
> receive messages via the forum is grounds to regard actions taken therein
> as invalid. My spam filter didn't eat it (I've checked, and it's also set
> never to eat Agora stuff) so it probably never entered my technical domain
> of control.
> ---
> 
> We really need to figure out these server problems ASAP.
> -Aris
> 
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Did you ever resolve proposal 8050? I certainly can't find a resolution...
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:09 AM Kerim Aydin 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> You couldn't have anyway because PLEDGES CAN NO LONGER BE DESTROYED,
> >> WITHOUT OBJECTION OR OTHERWISE.
> >>
> >> They can't be destroyed at all because they're no longer assets.  Please
> >> read
> >> Proposal 8050 - the only way for a pledge to end is to time out (and that
> >> doesn't outright "destroy" it, it just makes it untracked and
> >> non-punishable).
> >>
> >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Corona wrote:
> >> > T.T I couldn't have acted on that intent any earlier than next Tuesday,
> >> and
> >> > the dynasty will definitely be over by then.
> >> >
> >> > ~Corona
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I object to Corona’s attempt, because the dynasty isn’t over just yet
> >> (will
> >> > > be soon though).
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 06:35, Corona 
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Without objection I intend to retract every pledge I own. (the
> >> BlogNomic
> >> > > > one is no longer useful, too)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ¯Corona
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:02 AM, Ned Strange <
> >> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Without objection I intend to retract each pledge I own.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, Kerim Aydin <
> >> ke...@u.washington.edu>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > The below pledge list from the June 3 Referee Report
> >> self-ratified
> >> > > > prior
> >> > > > > > to Proposal 8050 taking effect.  The pledge dates (date
> >> tracking now
> >> > > > > > required by the Notary) don't self-ratify, but I did go back and
> >> > > > confirm.
> >> > > > > > Searching for 'pledge' in public archives back to March
> >> revealed no
> >> > > > other
> >> > > > > > recent pledges.  Pledges older than 60 days no longer require
> >> > > tracking.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > =the Referee, whose next report will be shorter=
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > PLEDGES (self-ratifying list of assets)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > == Trigon - Created 01 Jun 2018 07:35:31
> >> > > > > > I pledge to use as much integrity as is possible whenever I
> >> generate
> >> > > > > > random numbers.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > == Corona - Created 27 May 2018 17:29:28
> >> > > > > > I pledge to do all of the following in Blognomic's current
> >> dynasty:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > -always ahoy
> >> > > > > > Gams
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > -call hunts most of the time
> >> > > > > > -not change derrick’s or Cuddlebeam’s position if they perform
> >> their
> >> > > > > duties
> >> > > > > > adequately (scrubbing, joining hunts if healthy…)
> >> > > > > > -scrub the decks whenever I
> >> > > > > > am online and can do so
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > -generally work toward the preservation of the ship and the
> >> lives of
> >> > > > > > sailors, and maximizing profits
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > == G. - Created 10 May 2018 15:39:57
> >> > > > > > I pledge that I will not make any bids on behalf of zombies in
> >> the
> >> > > May
> >> > > > > > 2018 zombie auction.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > ===(below pledges were created prior to 01 Apr 2018)===
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Quazie -
> >> > > > > > I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
> >> > > > > > correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
> >> > > > > > Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
> >> > > > > > the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
> >> > > > > > self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
> >> > > > > > order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
> >> > > > > > source info in the explanation).
> >> > > 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Aris Merchant]

Did you ever resolve proposal 8050? I certainly can't find a resolution...

-Aris

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:09 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> You couldn't have anyway because PLEDGES CAN NO LONGER BE DESTROYED,
> WITHOUT OBJECTION OR OTHERWISE.
>
> They can't be destroyed at all because they're no longer assets.  Please
> read
> Proposal 8050 - the only way for a pledge to end is to time out (and that
> doesn't outright "destroy" it, it just makes it untracked and
> non-punishable).
>
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Corona wrote:
> > T.T I couldn't have acted on that intent any earlier than next Tuesday,
> and
> > the dynasty will definitely be over by then.
> >
> > ~Corona
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I object to Corona’s attempt, because the dynasty isn’t over just yet
> (will
> > > be soon though).
> > >
> > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 06:35, Corona 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Without objection I intend to retract every pledge I own. (the
> BlogNomic
> > > > one is no longer useful, too)
> > > >
> > > > ‾Corona
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:02 AM, Ned Strange <
> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Without objection I intend to retract each pledge I own.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, Kerim Aydin <
> ke...@u.washington.edu>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The below pledge list from the June 3 Referee Report
> self-ratified
> > > > prior
> > > > > > to Proposal 8050 taking effect.  The pledge dates (date tracking
> now
> > > > > > required by the Notary) don't self-ratify, but I did go back and
> > > > confirm.
> > > > > > Searching for 'pledge' in public archives back to March revealed
> no
> > > > other
> > > > > > recent pledges.  Pledges older than 60 days no longer require
> > > tracking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > =the Referee, whose next report will be shorter=
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PLEDGES (self-ratifying list of assets)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > == Trigon - Created 01 Jun 2018 07:35:31
> > > > > > I pledge to use as much integrity as is possible whenever I
> generate
> > > > > > random numbers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > == Corona - Created 27 May 2018 17:29:28
> > > > > > I pledge to do all of the following in Blognomic's current
> dynasty:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -always ahoy
> > > > > > Gams
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -call hunts most of the time
> > > > > > -not change derrick’s or Cuddlebeam’s position if they perform
> their
> > > > > duties
> > > > > > adequately (scrubbing, joining hunts if healthy…)
> > > > > > -scrub the decks whenever I
> > > > > > am online and can do so
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -generally work toward the preservation of the ship and the
> lives of
> > > > > > sailors, and maximizing profits
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > == G. - Created 10 May 2018 15:39:57
> > > > > > I pledge that I will not make any bids on behalf of zombies in
> the
> > > May
> > > > > > 2018 zombie auction.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ===(below pledges were created prior to 01 Apr 2018)===
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Quazie -
> > > > > > I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
> > > > > > correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
> > > > > > Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
> > > > > > the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
> > > > > > self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
> > > > > > order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
> > > > > > source info in the explanation).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > V.J Rada -
> > > > > > I pledge not to make any thread titles completely unrelated to
> > > > > > the email's content, nor use any agency or other mechanism to
> > > > > > attempt to gain control of any player at the exclusion of all
> > > > > > other players.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gaelan (14 Sep 2017) -
> > > > > > I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
> > > > > > proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless
> > > > > > the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nichdel -
> > > > > > I pledge to vote AGAINST on all proposals created or pended by
> > > > > > Cuddle Beam.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nichdel -
> > > > > > I pledge to Object to all intentions by Cuddle Beam that I can
> > > > > > object to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nichdel -
> > > > > > I pledge to give a trust token and 5 shinies (as soon as
> > > > > > possible) to any other player who also performs the above three
> > > > > > pledges, except Cuddle Beam.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nichdel -
> > > > > > I pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
> > > > > > I too pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
> > > > > > I...pledge to fix the margins, if the issue is explained to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Kerim Aydin]

You couldn't have anyway because PLEDGES CAN NO LONGER BE DESTROYED, 
WITHOUT OBJECTION OR OTHERWISE.

They can't be destroyed at all because they're no longer assets.  Please read 
Proposal 8050 - the only way for a pledge to end is to time out (and that
doesn't outright "destroy" it, it just makes it untracked and non-punishable).

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Corona wrote:
> T.T I couldn't have acted on that intent any earlier than next Tuesday, and
> the dynasty will definitely be over by then.
> 
> ~Corona
> 
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> > I object to Corona’s attempt, because the dynasty isn’t over just yet (will
> > be soon though).
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 06:35, Corona  wrote:
> >
> > > Without objection I intend to retract every pledge I own. (the BlogNomic
> > > one is no longer useful, too)
> > >
> > > ~Corona
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:02 AM, Ned Strange 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Without objection I intend to retract each pledge I own.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The below pledge list from the June 3 Referee Report self-ratified
> > > prior
> > > > > to Proposal 8050 taking effect.  The pledge dates (date tracking now
> > > > > required by the Notary) don't self-ratify, but I did go back and
> > > confirm.
> > > > > Searching for 'pledge' in public archives back to March revealed no
> > > other
> > > > > recent pledges.  Pledges older than 60 days no longer require
> > tracking.
> > > > >
> > > > > =the Referee, whose next report will be shorter=
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > PLEDGES (self-ratifying list of assets)
> > > > >
> > > > > == Trigon - Created 01 Jun 2018 07:35:31
> > > > > I pledge to use as much integrity as is possible whenever I generate
> > > > > random numbers.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > == Corona - Created 27 May 2018 17:29:28
> > > > > I pledge to do all of the following in Blognomic's current dynasty:
> > > > >
> > > > > -always ahoy
> > > > > Gams
> > > > >
> > > > > -call hunts most of the time
> > > > > -not change derrick’s or Cuddlebeam’s position if they perform their
> > > > duties
> > > > > adequately (scrubbing, joining hunts if healthy…)
> > > > > -scrub the decks whenever I
> > > > > am online and can do so
> > > > >
> > > > > -generally work toward the preservation of the ship and the lives of
> > > > > sailors, and maximizing profits
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > == G. - Created 10 May 2018 15:39:57
> > > > > I pledge that I will not make any bids on behalf of zombies in the
> > May
> > > > > 2018 zombie auction.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ===(below pledges were created prior to 01 Apr 2018)===
> > > > >
> > > > > Quazie -
> > > > > I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
> > > > > correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
> > > > > Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
> > > > > the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
> > > > > self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
> > > > > order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
> > > > > source info in the explanation).
> > > > >
> > > > > V.J Rada -
> > > > > I pledge not to make any thread titles completely unrelated to
> > > > > the email's content, nor use any agency or other mechanism to
> > > > > attempt to gain control of any player at the exclusion of all
> > > > > other players.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gaelan (14 Sep 2017) -
> > > > > I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
> > > > > proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless
> > > > > the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed.
> > > > >
> > > > > nichdel -
> > > > > I pledge to vote AGAINST on all proposals created or pended by
> > > > > Cuddle Beam.
> > > > >
> > > > > nichdel -
> > > > > I pledge to Object to all intentions by Cuddle Beam that I can
> > > > > object to.
> > > > >
> > > > > nichdel -
> > > > > I pledge to give a trust token and 5 shinies (as soon as
> > > > > possible) to any other player who also performs the above three
> > > > > pledges, except Cuddle Beam.
> > > > >
> > > > > nichdel -
> > > > > I pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T.
> > > > >
> > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
> > > > > I too pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T.
> > > > >
> > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
> > > > > I...pledge to fix the margins, if the issue is explained to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
> > > > > I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
> > > > > still possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cuddlebeam -
> > > > > I pledge to hook people up in a reasonable amount of time, according
> > > > > to the message above, during what's left of the current month and
> > > > > November.
> > > > > [Referee's note: This pledge refers to the message listed
> > > > > 

DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

[Corona]

T.T I couldn't have acted on that intent any earlier than next Tuesday, and
the dynasty will definitely be over by then.

~Corona

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> I object to Corona’s attempt, because the dynasty isn’t over just yet (will
> be soon though).
>
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 06:35, Corona  wrote:
>
> > Without objection I intend to retract every pledge I own. (the BlogNomic
> > one is no longer useful, too)
> >
> > ~Corona
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:02 AM, Ned Strange 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Without objection I intend to retract each pledge I own.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The below pledge list from the June 3 Referee Report self-ratified
> > prior
> > > > to Proposal 8050 taking effect.  The pledge dates (date tracking now
> > > > required by the Notary) don't self-ratify, but I did go back and
> > confirm.
> > > > Searching for 'pledge' in public archives back to March revealed no
> > other
> > > > recent pledges.  Pledges older than 60 days no longer require
> tracking.
> > > >
> > > > =the Referee, whose next report will be shorter=
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > PLEDGES (self-ratifying list of assets)
> > > >
> > > > == Trigon - Created 01 Jun 2018 07:35:31
> > > > I pledge to use as much integrity as is possible whenever I generate
> > > > random numbers.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > == Corona - Created 27 May 2018 17:29:28
> > > > I pledge to do all of the following in Blognomic's current dynasty:
> > > >
> > > > -always ahoy
> > > > Gams
> > > >
> > > > -call hunts most of the time
> > > > -not change derrick’s or Cuddlebeam’s position if they perform their
> > > duties
> > > > adequately (scrubbing, joining hunts if healthy…)
> > > > -scrub the decks whenever I
> > > > am online and can do so
> > > >
> > > > -generally work toward the preservation of the ship and the lives of
> > > > sailors, and maximizing profits
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > == G. - Created 10 May 2018 15:39:57
> > > > I pledge that I will not make any bids on behalf of zombies in the
> May
> > > > 2018 zombie auction.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ===(below pledges were created prior to 01 Apr 2018)===
> > > >
> > > > Quazie -
> > > > I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
> > > > correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
> > > > Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
> > > > the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
> > > > self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
> > > > order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
> > > > source info in the explanation).
> > > >
> > > > V.J Rada -
> > > > I pledge not to make any thread titles completely unrelated to
> > > > the email's content, nor use any agency or other mechanism to
> > > > attempt to gain control of any player at the exclusion of all
> > > > other players.
> > > >
> > > > Gaelan (14 Sep 2017) -
> > > > I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
> > > > proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless
> > > > the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed.
> > > >
> > > > nichdel -
> > > > I pledge to vote AGAINST on all proposals created or pended by
> > > > Cuddle Beam.
> > > >
> > > > nichdel -
> > > > I pledge to Object to all intentions by Cuddle Beam that I can
> > > > object to.
> > > >
> > > > nichdel -
> > > > I pledge to give a trust token and 5 shinies (as soon as
> > > > possible) to any other player who also performs the above three
> > > > pledges, except Cuddle Beam.
> > > >
> > > > nichdel -
> > > > I pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T.
> > > >
> > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
> > > > I too pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T.
> > > >
> > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
> > > > I...pledge to fix the margins, if the issue is explained to me.
> > > >
> > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
> > > > I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
> > > > still possible.
> > > >
> > > > Cuddlebeam -
> > > > I pledge to hook people up in a reasonable amount of time, according
> > > > to the message above, during what's left of the current month and
> > > > November.
> > > > [Referee's note: This pledge refers to the message listed
> > > > athttps://www.mail-archive.com/agora
> > > > business at agoranomic.org/msg30230.html]
> > > >
> > > > V.J. Rada -
> > > > I pledge to give a win and a black ribbon to everyone who votes for
> > > > "hopefully you guys all vote for this" if that passes.
> > > >
> > > > o - (Nov 7, '17)
> > > > I pledge to pay 5 sh. to the first person to publicly identify the
> > > > specific bug I fixed in the Surveyor’s report this week, provided
> > > > their answer includes either the word, some synonym for the word, or
> > > > some observation related to the word, whose sha256 hash is
> > > > 

DIS: Re: BUS: pledge simplifcation

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 27 May 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


All pledges that existed as assets the instant before this Proposal
took effect are considered to have been made as pledges under the
current version of Rule 2450.


This phrasing disturbs my platonic sense.  Make them _actually_ be 
pledges, thank you.  Rules might get away with just considering things, 
but proposals have only immediate effects.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: pledge simplifcation

[Aris Merchant]

Looks great. This gives me some ideas on how to do that regulations
reform that I've been thinking about. I'm still planning to work on
it, and I should have time for it in June.

-Aris

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
>
> I submit the following proposal, Pledge Simplification, AI-1.7:
>
> 
>
> [The Asset-nature of pledges is complicated and serves no purpose;
> if pledges are to be used for out-of-Agora agreements, the Agoran
> Consent constraint makes no sense as it's not a voting matter].
>
> Amend Rule 2450 (Pledges) to read in full:
>
>   If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform
>   (or refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the
>   pledge within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
>   Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
>   otherwise.  The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless
>   the pledge explicitly states otherwise.
>
>   If breaking the pledge harms specific other parties, the Referee
>   SHOULD solicit the opinion of those parties in determining an
>   appropriate fine.
>
>   The Notary's Weekly Report includes a copy of all pledges that
>   are within their time window, and the dates the pledges were
>   made.
>
> All pledges that existed as assets the instant before this Proposal
> took effect are considered to have been made as pledges under the
> current version of Rule 2450.
>
> 
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pledge-b-gone

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 6 May 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Or, we could just repeal them.
> 
> I use pledges.  If you want to ditch something, ditch regulations.

Actually nvm I forgot how poor the enforcement mechanism for pledges
was these days - I'd say now that punishments are quantifiable go
back to the old simple method (untracked, simply say "breaking a 
pledge breaks this rule").

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pledge-b-gone

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 6 May 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> I object: do this by proposal

Why?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pledge-b-gone

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 5 May 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Or, we could just repeal them.

I use pledges.  If you want to ditch something, ditch regulations.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pledge-b-gone

[Aris Merchant]

Or, we could just repeal them.

-Aris

On Sat, May 5, 2018, 9:32 PM Ned Strange  wrote:
>
> I object: do this by proposal
>
> On Saturday, May 5, 2018, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I intend to ratify the following document without objection:
> > { No pledges existed on 04 May 18 19:55:00 UTC }
> >
> >
> > The above document is not correct.  The pledges in existence before
> > ratification are listed in the just-published Referee's Report:
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/
> > agora-official/2018-May/012389.html
> > I believe every single one of them is out-of-date or lacks sufficient
> > context/information to ever call in, therefore they serve no purpose.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: pledge-b-gone

[Ned Strange]

I object: do this by proposal

On Saturday, May 5, 2018, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> I intend to ratify the following document without objection:
> { No pledges existed on 04 May 18 19:55:00 UTC }
>
>
> The above document is not correct.  The pledges in existence before
> ratification are listed in the just-published Referee's Report:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/
> agora-official/2018-May/012389.html
> I believe every single one of them is out-of-date or lacks sufficient
> context/information to ever call in, therefore they serve no purpose.
>
>
>
>

-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

I realized you were trying to set quorum with the terrible proposal, but
what was the quorum bug itself?  I thought it was a side-effect of it
working as intended (a feature not a bug).

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Thank you for your honesty.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-09-25 at 23:24 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> Speaking of mysterious secrets: ais523, can you tell us why you
> >> submitted the repeal all rules proposal around the time of your
> >> junta?
> >> Sorry if I already asked and forgot about it.
> >
> > First of all, the actual text of the proposal was irrelevant, so I
> > decided to go for something amusing. (Because Agora is Agora, I first
> > triplechecked that it wouldn't do anything if it passed; there were a
> > number of intentional mistakes in it.)
> >
> > The original intention when I filed the proposal was to make it
> > possible to manipulate quorum with it as an emergency counterscam (you
> > couldn't force through a proposal if quorum was high enough). A
> > proposal like that tends to attract a lot of votes, and it would be the
> > next proposal to go through if things went badly wrong during the scam
> > itself. Of course, this wouldn't exactly be a bulletproof counterscam –
> > the votes on it could be retracted by the scamster – but having bribed
> > the Assessor, it seemed that having control over two important parts of
> > the gamestate (the timing of Assessing and the nature of the first
> > proposal to go through with the scam public) would help put me in the
> > best possible position minimize any potential damage. (I wasn't
> > planning to make it publicly known that quorum was relevant until
> > absolutely necessary, and was hoping any potential scamster would miss
> > this.)
> >
> > As it happens, the proposal was distributed much earlier than I'd
> > expected (the Terrible nature of the proposal, in addition to the fact
> > that I'd stated that it was important to the scam and the fact that the
> > Promotor had been stalling other obvious scam proposals at the time,
> > made me think it would be stalled, but it wasn't). So I adapted, and
> > used it as a vessel on which to do quorum manipulation; because it
> > would necessarily attract several votes, and I could retract them, it
> > let me accurately set quorum to any specific value I wanted, which was
> > particularly handy in making sure that the scam worked. Even better, it
> > let me disguise the reason why I was retracting the votes (I could make
> > it look like I was panicking about the proposal potentially actually
> > passing, rather than doing something with no apparent purpose,
> > increasing the chance that people realised that I was trying to set
> > quorum). This was likely a much better plan than my original one (which
> > was kind-of half-thought-out).
> >
> > Incidentally, the specific quorum bug exploited was an intentional bug
> > that I slipped into the quorum rule at the time when I wrote it. Agora
> > was going through a lull, and finding it very hard to make quorum (back
> > then it was based on the number of players, not on the number of voting
> > players), so it was easy to slip in a buggy quorum rule as we badly
> > needed one. This obeyed my standard Agoran practice for proposals
> > ("every proposal that isn't an obvious scam should improve the game;
> > it's just that it's allowed to contain a minor scam at the same time"),
> > incidentally, it's fairly rare that I slip a scam into a proposal over
> > here at Agora, because if I did it too often everybody would vote down
> > my proposals on principle (i.e. "what happened to me over at BlogNomic"
> > ). I decided that passing a proposal with very few votes is the sort of
> > thing that I'd be much more likely to do than anyone else, and so this
> > disproportionately benefitted me (although at the time, I was
> > originally planning to let quorum reduce "naturally" as hardly anyone
> > was playing; this method with retracting votes wouldn't have worked in
> > the ruleset at the time).
> >
> > --
> > ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pledge

[Aris Merchant]

Thank you for your honesty.

-Aris

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-09-25 at 23:24 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> Speaking of mysterious secrets: ais523, can you tell us why you
>> submitted the repeal all rules proposal around the time of your
>> junta?
>> Sorry if I already asked and forgot about it.
>
> First of all, the actual text of the proposal was irrelevant, so I
> decided to go for something amusing. (Because Agora is Agora, I first
> triplechecked that it wouldn't do anything if it passed; there were a
> number of intentional mistakes in it.)
>
> The original intention when I filed the proposal was to make it
> possible to manipulate quorum with it as an emergency counterscam (you
> couldn't force through a proposal if quorum was high enough). A
> proposal like that tends to attract a lot of votes, and it would be the
> next proposal to go through if things went badly wrong during the scam
> itself. Of course, this wouldn't exactly be a bulletproof counterscam –
> the votes on it could be retracted by the scamster – but having bribed
> the Assessor, it seemed that having control over two important parts of
> the gamestate (the timing of Assessing and the nature of the first
> proposal to go through with the scam public) would help put me in the
> best possible position minimize any potential damage. (I wasn't
> planning to make it publicly known that quorum was relevant until
> absolutely necessary, and was hoping any potential scamster would miss
> this.)
>
> As it happens, the proposal was distributed much earlier than I'd
> expected (the Terrible nature of the proposal, in addition to the fact
> that I'd stated that it was important to the scam and the fact that the
> Promotor had been stalling other obvious scam proposals at the time,
> made me think it would be stalled, but it wasn't). So I adapted, and
> used it as a vessel on which to do quorum manipulation; because it
> would necessarily attract several votes, and I could retract them, it
> let me accurately set quorum to any specific value I wanted, which was
> particularly handy in making sure that the scam worked. Even better, it
> let me disguise the reason why I was retracting the votes (I could make
> it look like I was panicking about the proposal potentially actually
> passing, rather than doing something with no apparent purpose,
> increasing the chance that people realised that I was trying to set
> quorum). This was likely a much better plan than my original one (which
> was kind-of half-thought-out).
>
> Incidentally, the specific quorum bug exploited was an intentional bug
> that I slipped into the quorum rule at the time when I wrote it. Agora
> was going through a lull, and finding it very hard to make quorum (back
> then it was based on the number of players, not on the number of voting
> players), so it was easy to slip in a buggy quorum rule as we badly
> needed one. This obeyed my standard Agoran practice for proposals
> ("every proposal that isn't an obvious scam should improve the game;
> it's just that it's allowed to contain a minor scam at the same time"),
> incidentally, it's fairly rare that I slip a scam into a proposal over
> here at Agora, because if I did it too often everybody would vote down
> my proposals on principle (i.e. "what happened to me over at BlogNomic"
> ). I decided that passing a proposal with very few votes is the sort of
> thing that I'd be much more likely to do than anyone else, and so this
> disproportionately benefitted me (although at the time, I was
> originally planning to let quorum reduce "naturally" as hardly anyone
> was playing; this method with retracting votes wouldn't have worked in
> the ruleset at the time).
>
> --
> ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pledge

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-09-25 at 23:24 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Speaking of mysterious secrets: ais523, can you tell us why you
> submitted the repeal all rules proposal around the time of your
> junta?
> Sorry if I already asked and forgot about it.

First of all, the actual text of the proposal was irrelevant, so I
decided to go for something amusing. (Because Agora is Agora, I first
triplechecked that it wouldn't do anything if it passed; there were a
number of intentional mistakes in it.)

The original intention when I filed the proposal was to make it
possible to manipulate quorum with it as an emergency counterscam (you
couldn't force through a proposal if quorum was high enough). A
proposal like that tends to attract a lot of votes, and it would be the
next proposal to go through if things went badly wrong during the scam
itself. Of course, this wouldn't exactly be a bulletproof counterscam –
the votes on it could be retracted by the scamster – but having bribed
the Assessor, it seemed that having control over two important parts of
the gamestate (the timing of Assessing and the nature of the first
proposal to go through with the scam public) would help put me in the
best possible position minimize any potential damage. (I wasn't
planning to make it publicly known that quorum was relevant until
absolutely necessary, and was hoping any potential scamster would miss
this.)

As it happens, the proposal was distributed much earlier than I'd
expected (the Terrible nature of the proposal, in addition to the fact
that I'd stated that it was important to the scam and the fact that the
Promotor had been stalling other obvious scam proposals at the time,
made me think it would be stalled, but it wasn't). So I adapted, and
used it as a vessel on which to do quorum manipulation; because it
would necessarily attract several votes, and I could retract them, it
let me accurately set quorum to any specific value I wanted, which was
particularly handy in making sure that the scam worked. Even better, it
let me disguise the reason why I was retracting the votes (I could make
it look like I was panicking about the proposal potentially actually
passing, rather than doing something with no apparent purpose,
increasing the chance that people realised that I was trying to set
quorum). This was likely a much better plan than my original one (which
was kind-of half-thought-out).

Incidentally, the specific quorum bug exploited was an intentional bug
that I slipped into the quorum rule at the time when I wrote it. Agora
was going through a lull, and finding it very hard to make quorum (back
then it was based on the number of players, not on the number of voting
players), so it was easy to slip in a buggy quorum rule as we badly
needed one. This obeyed my standard Agoran practice for proposals
("every proposal that isn't an obvious scam should improve the game;
it's just that it's allowed to contain a minor scam at the same time"),
incidentally, it's fairly rare that I slip a scam into a proposal over
here at Agora, because if I did it too often everybody would vote down
my proposals on principle (i.e. "what happened to me over at BlogNomic"
). I decided that passing a proposal with very few votes is the sort of
thing that I'd be much more likely to do than anyone else, and so this
disproportionately benefitted me (although at the time, I was
originally planning to let quorum reduce "naturally" as hardly anyone
was playing; this method with retracting votes wouldn't have worked in
the ruleset at the time).

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: pledge

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> I pledge as follows:
>
> If a plaintext (ISO-8859-1) of the following SHA-512 hash is published,
> where the plaintext is 42 characters or less in length, then I will have
> performed as described in it:
>
> 766697bbcd12ee0d916bd2ee0edb5d351fef2bf6d32dd5d0bb002031fefbaca9
> a1bc1732ce2f9f00f1fc396015c859f8991a31b4c3938ab8a568acafc2f43ae8
>
> [This is written such that it cannot be considered broken unless its
> plaintext is published, which I assume would only happen if certain
> private parties are unsatisfied with my actions over the next week.
> Yes, I know of the upcoming proposal that would destroy this pledge
> - that should be enough time].
>
>
>

Speaking of mysterious secrets: ais523, can you tell us why you
submitted the repeal all rules proposal around the time of your junta?
Sorry if I already asked and forgot about it.

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge

[ais523]

On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 18:15 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
 I join Scumbuddies and change my membership to full.
Fails because I forgot to give consent. Ask for comex's and try again.

-- 
ais523
Notary

DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge

[Roger Hicks]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 18:15, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
 I join Scumbuddies and change my membership to full.

 -coppro

Did comex and ais523 grant their consent? of not this was unsuccessful.

BobTHJ

DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge

[Pavitra]

ais523 wrote:
 Any party (the actor) CAN act on behalf of a party (the grantor) whose
 membership is full by announcement, except to intend or agree to make
 Contract Changes to this contract, but SHALL NOT do so except in the
 following cases:
 
 - as would be POSSIBLE if not for this contract.

Note that this could have weird implications in the presence of two such
contracts, though equitability may insulate against it.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge: Send-only address access

[Chris Blair]

While I don't question the adding of a dice server as a send-only
address, wouldn't it be proper to add the *correct* address? :)

I intend to add [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a send-only address to the
Business Forum without objection.

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Dec 3, 2008, at 8:22 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:

 On Dec 2, 2008, at 7:20 PM, Taral wrote:

 I pledge the following:

 {Players may add or remove an email address as a send-only address
 to a specific Public Forum Without Objection. The Distributor SHALL
 take what actions are necessary to permit (or prevent, as appropriate)
 that address to send messages to that Public Forum.

 Parties may leave this pledge by announcement. This pledge terminates
 if the Distributor is not a party.}

 (For dice-servers and other automated systems.)

 In accordance with this, I intend to add [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a send-only
 address to the Business Forum without objection.

 There having been no objection, I add [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a send-only address
 to the Business Forum.  H. Distributor Taral, please let us know when the
 dice server can send messages.
 -
 Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
 OscarMeyr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge: Send-only address access

[Taral]

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Chris Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I intend to add [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a send-only address to the
 Business Forum without objection.

Given that this is just a correction of [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is
already approved without objection, I have simply made the change.

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge: Send-only address access

[Jamie Dallaire]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] works just fine, no? That's where I always send my random
rolls.

Billy Pilgrim

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Chris Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I intend to add [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a send-only address to the
  Business Forum without objection.

 Given that this is just a correction of [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is
 already approved without objection, I have simply made the change.

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge: Send-only address access

[Chris Blair]

While that's where you *send* the random rolls, the roll results
actually come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's what Taral was talking
about.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Jamie Dallaire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] works just fine, no? That's where I always send my random
 rolls.

 Billy Pilgrim

 On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Chris Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I intend to add [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a send-only address to the
  Business Forum without objection.

 Given that this is just a correction of [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is
 already approved without objection, I have simply made the change.

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge: Send-only address access

[Jamie Dallaire]

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Chris Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 While that's where you *send* the random rolls, the roll results
 actually come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's what Taral was talking
 about.


Ah, thanks. I'd never actually noticed it wasn't coming back from the same
address.

Billy Pilgrim

DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge: Send-only address access

[Taral]

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 There having been no objection, I add [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a send-only address
 to the Business Forum.  H. Distributor Taral, please let us know when the
 dice server can send messages.

Done, but it won't work:

Dec  8 14:07:14 yzma postfix/qmgr[344]: 358FD8077A:
from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=3717, nrcpt=1 (queue active)

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge: Send-only address access

[Benjamin Schultz]

On Dec 8, 2008, at 3:12 PM, Taral wrote:

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Benjamin Schultz  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There having been no objection, I add [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a send- 
only address
to the Business Forum.  H. Distributor Taral, please let us know  
when the

dice server can send messages.


Done, but it won't work:

Dec  8 14:07:14 yzma postfix/qmgr[344]: 358FD8077A:
from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=3717, nrcpt=1 (queue active)


Time to test it.  I am about to roll the classic 3d6; there will be  
no game actions in the roll other than a communications test.

-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge: Send-only address access

[Taral]

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hm. Could also be useful for TNP2, since it's been receiving a lot of
 Agora stuff that no sane person would read from Normish..

Addresses that can receive but don't want to can simply adjust their
mailing list settings:

http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo

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

DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge

[Elliott Hird]

On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:37, Ian Kelly wrote:


I agree to the following:

This is a public contract.  This is a pledge.  root CAN amend or
terminate this contract at any time by announcement.  Any person CAN
act on behalf of root to cast on any Agoran decision a vote endorsing
the partnership that was known as Bayes at the time this contract was
formed.

-root


Huh. You put a lot of faith into The Algorithm. :-P

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge

[Ian Kelly]

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:37, Ian Kelly wrote:

 I agree to the following:

 This is a public contract.  This is a pledge.  root CAN amend or
 terminate this contract at any time by announcement.  Any person CAN
 act on behalf of root to cast on any Agoran decision a vote endorsing
 the partnership that was known as Bayes at the time this contract was
 formed.

 -root

 Huh. You put a lot of faith into The Algorithm. :-P

I can always just retract the votes and cast different ones.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge termination

[Ian Kelly]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 I hereby end/terminate/retract/rescind/finish/kill -9 the Vote Goethe pledge,
 as the pledge allows.  -Goethe

-bash: end/terminate/retract/rescind/finish/kill: No such file or directory

DIS: Re: BUS: pledge and equity case

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
 I make the following binding agreement:

 ==

 1. This is a public contract.

 2. This is a pledge.

 3. Any party to this contract CAN leave it by announcement and SHOULD
 do so at eir first opportunity.

 ==

 I initiate an equity case against the above contract.  The set of
 parties to the contract is root, and the state of affairs is that I
 haven't left the contract at my first opportunity, as is expected of
 me.

Um, CAN and SHOULD != MUST...?  -Goethe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pledge and equity case

[Ian Kelly]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Um, CAN and SHOULD != MUST...?  -Goethe

Well, that's the point.  I contend that doesn't matter, that a state
of affairs whereby events have not proceeded as envisioned by the
contract can follow from violating a SHOULD.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pledge and equity case

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
 On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Um, CAN and SHOULD != MUST...?  -Goethe

 Well, that's the point.  I contend that doesn't matter, that a state
 of affairs whereby events have not proceeded as envisioned by the
 contract can follow from violating a SHOULD.

But it's not a violation.  As evidenced by the fact that you called the CFJ
on the matter, you've understood and carefully weighed ... the full 
implications of failing to perform and so performed according to the 
contract.  -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pledge and equity case

[Ian Kelly]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  But it's not a violation.  As evidenced by the fact that you called the CFJ
  on the matter, you've understood and carefully weighed ... the full
  implications of failing to perform and so performed according to the
  contract.  -G.

I would think the fact that I called an equity case should be evidence
that I think I've acted recklessly in that regard.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pledge and equity case

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
 On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  But it's not a violation.  As evidenced by the fact that you called the CFJ
  on the matter, you've understood and carefully weighed ... the full
  implications of failing to perform and so performed according to the
  contract.  -G.

 I would think the fact that I called an equity case should be evidence
 that I think I've acted recklessly in that regard.

But your CFJ shows you understood the implications of your allegedly reckless 
action.  And the more you try to explain, the more you show that you are
weighing the options carefully :)  -Goethe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pledge and equity case

[Ian Kelly]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  But your CFJ shows you understood the implications of your allegedly reckless
  action.  And the more you try to explain, the more you show that you are
  weighing the options carefully :)  -Goethe

I think that at most it shows that I suspected there might be
implications.  And it doesn't matter if I consider the implications
now, because I was supposed to consider them before I failed to leave
the contract at my first opportunity.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pledge and equity case

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
 On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  But your CFJ shows you understood the implications of your allegedly 
 reckless
  action.  And the more you try to explain, the more you show that you are
  weighing the options carefully :)  -Goethe

 I think that at most it shows that I suspected there might be
 implications.  And it doesn't matter if I consider the implications
 now, because I was supposed to consider them before I failed to leave
 the contract at my first opportunity.

On that point, to decide whether or not to obey a SHOULD, you need to have 
time to consider, so your first opportunity to have weighed the options 
of a SHOULD and quit is not necessarily the first instant in which you could 
have physically responded.  -Goethe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge and Location CFJs

[Ian Kelly]

On Jan 17, 2008 8:21 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 A properly written pledge could probably prevent the joining, though to be a
 contract, it would need to have had 2 parties at some point.

A person intent on abusing the loophole presumably wouldn't write it
that way in the first place.

 But, regardless,
 I think the contract rules are generally pretty poor, if not seriously
 flawed, regarding 0 and 1 person contracts. There probably needs to be more
 explicit regulation of creating, becoming a party to, ceasing to be a party
 to, and changing pledges and locations.

Not really surprising, since they weren't originally written to
support agreements with fewer than 2 parties.  Locations were pretty
much added on a whim.

-root