Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
On 7/5/09 1:16 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Charles Reiss wrote: >> On 7/5/09 12:42 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: >>> Having received the necessary consent, I cause the LPRS to intend with >>> Agoran Consent to register. >>> >>> I support. >> >> You CANNOT. > > Yes I can. The LPRS is the initiator of the intent, not me. Doesn't matter. You are the Executor of the intent. Quoth Rule 2124: A Supporter of a dependent action is a first-class player who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an announcement of intent to perform the action. [...] The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support it, but CAN generally object to it (withdrawal of intent is equivalent to objection). [...] - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
Charles Reiss wrote: > On 7/5/09 12:42 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: >> Having received the necessary consent, I cause the LPRS to intend with >> Agoran Consent to register. >> >> I support. > > You CANNOT. Yes I can. The LPRS is the initiator of the intent, not me.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> I intend, with the majority consent of {coppro, C-walker, BobTHJ} to
> amend the LPRS by appending the following paragraph to section I.
> GENERAL CONTRACTY STUFF:
> {
> This contract contains the string "inferences".
> }
Err, just ignore that.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
> I'm guessing you switched to "Compose messages as plain > text" from > "Compose messages as color and graphics" in the options? Actually, since I'm using Yahoo Webmail, I had to change to classic mode (I didn't realize it was still available), and then the plaintext button was right there in the message composition window. But essentially, yes.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
Gabriel Vistica wrote: >>Gabriel Vistica wrote: >>> comex wrote: Just a heads up: it's good form to use plain text rather than HTML mil on the list. >>> >>> Got it. Shouldn't be a problem anyway, since my HTML is mostly >>> limited to newlines, links, and basic text formatting, and it's a >>> little rusty. >> >>I don't know whether whatever interface you're using provides an easy >>way to turn HTML capabilities off, but it looks like you're sending HTML >>mail even when you don't intend it -- your last two messages in this >>thread (I haven't checked any others) were HTML. > > Oops, sorry. That better? Yes, excellent. Thank you. I'm guessing you switched to "Compose messages as plain text" from "Compose messages as color and graphics" in the options?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
>Gabriel Vistica wrote: >> comex wrote: >>> Just a heads up: it's good form to use plain text rather than HTML >>> mil on the list. >> >> Got it. Shouldn't be a problem anyway, since my HTML is mostly >> limited to newlines, links, and basic text formatting, and it's a >> little rusty. > >I don't know whether whatever interface you're using provides an easy >way to turn HTML capabilities off, but it looks like you're sending HTML >mail even when you don't intend it -- your last two messages in this >thread (I haven't checked any others) were HTML. Oops, sorry. That better?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
Gabriel Vistica wrote: > comex wrote: >> Just a heads up: it's good form to use plain text rather than HTML >> mil on the list. > > Got it. Shouldn't be a problem anyway, since my HTML is mostly > limited to newlines, links, and basic text formatting, and it's a > little rusty. I don't know whether whatever interface you're using provides an easy way to turn HTML capabilities off, but it looks like you're sending HTML mail even when you don't intend it -- your last two messages in this thread (I haven't checked any others) were HTML. Doing a 'view source' in my mail reader reveals the following (headers stripped): --0-1483618713-1246488676=:19704 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii comex wrote: >Just a heads up: it's good form to use plain text rather than HTML >mil on the list. Got it. Shouldn't be a problem anyway, since my HTML is mostly limited to newlines, links, and basic text formatting, and it's a little rusty. --0-1483618713-1246488676=:19704 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii comex wrote: >Just a heads up: it's good form to use plain text rather than HTML>mil on the list. Got it. Shouldn't be a problem anyway, since my HTML is mostly limited to newlines, links, and basic text formatting, and it's a little rusty. --0-1483618713-1246488676=:19704--
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
comex wrote: >Just a heads up: it's good form to use plain text rather than HTML >mil on the list. Got it. Shouldn't be a problem anyway, since my HTML is mostly limited to newlines, links, and basic text formatting, and it's a little rusty.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Gabriel Vistica wrote: > Thanks, guys! Just a heads up: it's good form to use plain text rather than HTML mail on the list. -- -c.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
Thanks, guys!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Gabriel Vistica wrote: >>> Proposal 6380, if it passes, should make the whole thing >>> irrelevant. >> >> Irrelevant as in stopping the contract's attempt and preventing >> transfers, or as in making the contract redundant by allowing >> transfers? >> (I haven't really had a chance to get a feel for the�game and the >> players�yet, though I'm expecting the answer to be "stopping the >> contract". In case you� are all wondering, I'll probably jump in >> within a week or so.) > > Irrelevant. P6380 will make points transferable directly under the Rules. Err, for "irrelevant" read "redundant".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Gabriel Vistica wrote: >>Proposal 6380, if it passes, should make the whole thing irrelevant. > > Irrelevant as in stopping the contract's attempt and preventing transfers, > or as in making the contract redundant by allowing transfers? > (I haven't really had a chance to get a feel for the game and the > players yet, though I'm expecting the answer to be "stopping the contract". > In case you are all wondering, I'll probably jump in within a week or so.) P6380 would make it possible to transfer points (although such transfers are limited by the rules.) A while back a proposal was passed that tried to allow transfers of up to 5 points, but it missed that points are defined as a fixed asset, which means they can't be transferred at all.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
Gabriel Vistica wrote: >> Proposal 6380, if it passes, should make the whole thing >> irrelevant. > > Irrelevant as in stopping the contract's attempt and preventing > transfers, or as in making the contract redundant by allowing > transfers? > (I haven't really had a chance to get a feel for the�game and the > players�yet, though I'm expecting the answer to be "stopping the > contract". In case you� are all wondering, I'll probably jump in > within a week or so.) Irrelevant. P6380 will make points transferable directly under the Rules.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
>Gabriel Vistica wrote:
>>>Roger Hicks wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 15:12, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Unless someone else joins, the LPRS will only be a person for the next
> week, so I won't bother re-intending intending registration.
>
I join the LPRS.
>>>
>>>I intend, with the majority consent of {coppro, C-walker, BobTHJ}, to
>>>cause the LPRS to intend with Agoran Consent to register.
>>>
>>>Pavitra
>>
>> Checked the short and full rulesets, and I can't find it anywhere. What is
>> the LPRS?
>>
>> compsciguy
>
>It's a contract. It's not in the rulesets because it's defined in the
>private sector. It's one instance of a recurring attempt to
>non-legislatively get around the Rules saying that points can't be
>transferred.
>
>Proposal 6380, if it passes, should make the whole thing irrelevant.
Irrelevant as in stopping the contract's attempt and preventing transfers, or
as in making the contract redundant by allowing transfers?
(I haven't really had a chance to get a feel for the game and the players yet,
though I'm expecting the answer to be "stopping the contract". In case you are
all wondering, I'll probably jump in within a week or so.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
compsciguy wrote: > Checked the short and full rulesets, and I can't find it anywhere. What > is the LPRS? A fair amount of gameplay is governed by contracts rather than rules. In this case, see http://agora-notary.wikidot.com/lesser-points-relay-service
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
Gabriel Vistica wrote:
>>Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 15:12, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
Unless someone else joins, the LPRS will only be a person for the next
week, so I won't bother re-intending intending registration.
>>> I join the LPRS.
>>
>>I intend, with the majority consent of {coppro, C-walker, BobTHJ}, to
>>cause the LPRS to intend with Agoran Consent to register.
>>
>>Pavitra
>
> Checked the short and full rulesets, and I can't find it anywhere. What is
> the LPRS?
>
> compsciguy
It's a contract. It's not in the rulesets because it's defined in the
private sector. It's one instance of a recurring attempt to
non-legislatively get around the Rules saying that points can't be
transferred.
Proposal 6380, if it passes, should make the whole thing irrelevant.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
>Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 15:12, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>>> Unless someone else joins, the LPRS will only be a person for the next
>>> week, so I won't bother re-intending intending registration.
>>>
>> I join the LPRS.
>
>I intend, with the majority consent of {coppro, C-walker, BobTHJ}, to
>cause the LPRS to intend with Agoran Consent to register.
>
>Pavitra
Checked the short and full rulesets, and I can't find it anywhere. What is the
LPRS?
compsciguy
