I purchase a Digit Ranch.
-woggle
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 per
I wrote:
> For each contract listed below, I intend (without objection, and
> assuming I am elected Notary) to terminate it.
>
> A Circus of Random Values
> Agorans Against Unneeded Lynching
> /dev/null
> Embassy
> Left Hand
> Nomic Wars II
> Penny Exchange
> Pledge #18
> Russian Roulette
> The A
Warrigal wrote:
>>> Tue 2 Dec 23:27:07 Unnamed pledge created by Warrigal
I publicly pledge that if I get elected, I'll sort this out so that
harblcat, Siege and Charles get an equal chance.
>> Having received no objection, I terminate this contract.
>
> This is also a Grand Poobah pl
I wrote:
> Tue 2 Dec 01:51:42 Unnamed pledge created by Warrigal
>
>> This is a public contract. This is a pledge. Warrigal CAN terminate
>> this contract by announcement, but SHALL NOT do so if e is Grand
>> Poobah or there is currently an election for Grand Poobah.
>>
>> The List is initially
I wrote:
>> Wed 5 Nov 00:58:13 P1 and P2 amended; P3 through P100 come and go
In case the previous message was ineffective:
I terminate P1.
I terminate P2.
I terminate P3.
I terminate P4.
I terminate P5.
I terminate P6.
I terminate P7.
I terminate P8.
I terminate P9.
I terminate P10.
I termina
I wrote:
> For each contract listed below, I intend (without objection, and
> assuming I am elected Notary) to terminate it.
>
> Tue 4 Nov 22:43:29 comex agrees to an unnamed agreement
> Tue 4 Nov 22:48:47 ehird agrees to the above agreement, making it a
>contract
>
>
I wrote:
> For each contract whose text is quoted below, I intend (without
> objection, assuming I am elected Notary) to terminate it.
>
> Sun 5 Oct 02:03:40 The Law-abiding Partnership created by comex and
>Warrigal
>
>> 1. The name of this contract is "The Law-abiding
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement "It is a thing."
I retract this. I CFJ on the statement "It is a thing.", barring Murphy.
--Warrigal, attempting to change the truth again
I CFJ on the statement "It is a thing." Note that by the precedent of
CFJ 1988 (which I don't particularly care for), it might not be an
entity.
In the future, I may CFJ on the statements "It is a being.", "It is a
referent.", "It is a concept.", and "It is an object."
--Warrigal
Sorry, meant to send it to agora-business!
-- Forwarded message --
From: Chris Blair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Subject: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2296 assigned to harblcat
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using the definition of 'each' as "every one individually,"
On 7 Dec 2008, at 21:51, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I judge TRUE. The Vote Market agreement, the backing document of Vote
Points, does not restrict ownership of Vote Points to any particular
class of entity, thus by R2166 VP CAN be transferred to any entity at
all. Both the precedent of CFJ 1992 a
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2297
>
> == CFJ 2297 ==
>
>The office of Notary has at least one Vote Point.
I judge TRUE. The Vote Marke
On 7 Dec 2008, at 20:35, Elliott Hird wrote:
I submit a CFJ on the statement "FALSE is an appropriate judgement
on this CFJ".
I retract this; root fixed it.
I submit a CFJ on the statement "FALSE is an appropriate judgement on
this CFJ".
On 7 Dec 2008, at 20:15, Ed Murphy wrote:
Ineffective, the Z House only has one party. (ehird, you should
probably split up the criminal part and the appeal part; I wouldn't
attempt to terminate the criminal part, as presumably comex and Sgeo
would join it and leave their separate versions.)
On 7 Dec 2008, at 18:12, Elliott Hird wrote:
I CFJ on the statement "Warrigal is a party to the Wormhole".
I retract this CFJ and CFJ on the statement "Warrigal MAY transfer
assets".
I also submit all arguments submitted to the quoted CFJ by anyone as
arguments.
On 7 Dec 2008, at 19:51, comex wrote:
I zoop a criminal case against ehird for violating Rule 2170 by
selecting the confusing nickname .
I zoop a criminal case against comex for violating rule 2144 by
registering P2.
I zoop a criminal case against comex for violating rule 2144 by
register
On 12/7/08, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proposal 5998 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Sgeo
>> Senator-only elections
>> 2) If there is no Emergency Session at the time the decision is
>> initiated, the eligible voters are the active players. Otherwise, the
>> eligible voters are th
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Argument: Long-standing game custom has important entities, especially
> players, referred to by some title, especially a player's nickname. Using a
> null string as such a title would become very problematic -- but is
I harvest 2224, a new rule, for a random Land.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
6004 D 1 2.0 woggle Pragmatize Ribbons
6005 D 1 2.0 Murphy Contract precedence
6006 D 1 2.0 Murphy Clarify equity timing
6007 O 1 1.5 SgeoThanks Murphy
6008 D 1 2.0 Perlnomic PartnershipGive partnerships a chance
6009 O 1 1.0 Sgeo
Without objection from 3 Farmers, I intend to amend the AAA agreement
as follows, providing a way to effectively change the seed of a Digit
Ranch:
[Change a ranch]
Insert paragraph 6g with the following text:
Within one week after an existing rule is mutated (its power is
changed), a Farme
On Dec 5, 2008, at 4:53 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
I change my name to the null string (i.e., "" without the quotes.)
I submit the following inquiry CFJ, including the quoted email as
evidence:
ehird successfully changed eir name to a null string on or about 5
December 2008 21:53:02 UTC.
On Dec 5, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Wooble wrote:
This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the
holder of the Grand Poobah office. The eligible voters are the
active
players, the vote collector is the IADoP, and the valid options are
comex, OscarMeyr, and Warr
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Charles Schaefer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/12/6, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> If I can, I join the above contract.
>> > I imagine this is comparable to saying "If I am wearing a hat,
On 7 Dec 2008, at 18:09, Warrigal wrote:
I also transfer 1 coin to ehird.
I CFJ on the statement "Warrigal is a party to the Wormhole".
Arguments: IRRELEVANT is obviously not true, as Warrigal may have just
violated the contract by doing the above. UNDETERMINED is not
appropriate
either - t
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree to the following:
>> {
>> This is a public contract.
>>
>> This is a pledge if and only if it has one party.
>>
>> This contract is named "The Wormhole".
>>
>> Warrigal can join this contract if and only if the Riemann h
> I agree to the following:
> {
> This is a public contract.
>
> This is a pledge if and only if it has one party.
>
> This contract is named "The Wormhole".
>
> Warrigal can join this contract if and only if the Riemann hypothesis is
> false.
>
> Any party to this contract can leave it by announce
I agree to the following:
{
This is a public contract.
This is a pledge if and only if it has one party.
This contract is named "The Wormhole".
Warrigal can join this contract if and only if the Riemann hypothesis
is false.
Any party to this contract can leave it by announcement.
Warrigal,
> Proposal 5998 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Sgeo
> Senator-only elections
> 2) If there is no Emergency Session at the time the decision is
> initiated, the eligible voters are the active players. Otherwise, the
> eligible voters are the active Senators.
I transfer one prop from Sgeo
I intend, with two support, to appeal CFJ 2292 as it seems to imply
that what is "actually" true is irrelevant.
32 matches
Mail list logo
