I publish the following document, "Victory Condition of Being Bucky":
{{
The entity in question has sent a message to a public forum from the email
address "spamba...@yahoo.com".
}}
I initiate a CfJ on the statement "Bucky has satisfied the Victory Condition of
Being Bucky"
Evidence: The docum
On 10/23/2011 12:05 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I publish the following document, "Victory Condition of Being Bucky":
> {{
> The entity in question has sent a message to a public forum from the email
> address "spamba...@yahoo.com".
>
> }}
>
> I initiate a CfJ on the statement "Bucky has satisfied t
I vote:
> 7125 3.0 Tanner Relax / Stroke Hell
FOR
> 7126 1.0 scshunt The Government Needs to be More Transparent
FOR
> 7127 1.0 omd
PRESENT
> 7128 3.0 scshunt Fix 2351
FOR
> 7129 1.0 scshunt Why did we repeal that victory condition?
AGAINST; I'm really just not a fan of arbitr
> 7125 3.0 Tanner Relax / Stroke Hell
AGAINST
> 7126 1.0 scshunt The Government Needs to be More Transparent
AGAINST
> 7127 1.0 omd
FOR if, during the voting period for this proposal, BlogNomic starts a
new dynasty with Amnistar as Emperor; AGAINST otherwise.
> 7128 3.0 scshunt Fix 235
> 7125 3.0 Tanner Relax / Stroke Hell
AGAINST
> 7126 1.0 scshunt The Government Needs to be More Transparent
AGAINST
> 7127 1.0 omd
AGAINST (Patent Title yes, win no)
> 7128 3.0 scshunt Fix 2351
FOR (the clause in question is "The game of Agora, but not any player
of it, can make arbit
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Pavitra wrote:
> I assume Herald. I resign Herald.
Well, thanks for kicking me out of that position... :P
I assume Herald.
From: Pavitra
To: a-b
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: BUS: Victory Conditions are not well defined
On 10/23/2011 12:05 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I publish the following document, "Victory Condition of Being Bucky":
> {{
> The entity in quest
I call CFJs on the statements "There does not exist a decision that
could be made right now such that Agora wishes to counteract that
decision." and "Agora wishes to counteract a decision if and only if
the decision would substantially violate a person's rights as defined
by Rule 101".
Arguments:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Pavitra wrote:
> I publish the following document, "Victory Condition of Being Pavitra":
> {{
> The entity in question has sent a message to a public forum from the
> email address "celestialcognit...@gmail.com".
> }}
>
> I initiate a victory case, alleging that I (Pavitra)
On the latest distribution of proposals, I vote:
> 7125 3.0 Tanner Relax / Stroke Hell
AGAINST
> 7126 1.0 scshunt The Government Needs to be More Transparent
AGAINST
> 7127 1.0 omd
AGAINST, per Murphy
> 7128 3.0 scshunt Fix 2351
FOR
> 7129 1.0 scshunt Why did we repeal that victor
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:32, Sean Hunt wrote:
> NUM AI AUTHOR TITLE
>
> 7125 3.0 Tanner Relax / Stroke Hell
AGAINST
> 7126 1.0 scshunt The Government Needs to be More Transparent
FOR
> 7127 1.0 omd
AGAINST
> 7128 3.0 scshunt Fix 2351
FOR
> 7129 1.0 scshunt Why did we repe
> 7125 3.0 Tanner Relax / Stroke Hell
AGAINST
> 7126 1.0 scshunt The Government Needs to be More Transparent
AGAINST
> 7127 1.0 omd
AGAINST
> 7128 3.0 scshunt Fix 2351
PRESENT
> 7129 1.0 scshunt Why did we repeal that victory condition?
PRESENT
> 7130 1.0 Arkady
AGAINST
> 7131 2.0
My votes are as follows:
On 23 October 2011 17:32, Sean Hunt wrote:
> For the duration of this message, I am deputizing for Promotor.
>
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it. For this decision, the eligible
> voters are the active fir
Proposal: Fixing Victory, AI 1.7
--
Amend Rule 2343 (Victory Cases) by changing its title to
"Victory Conditions" and amending it to read:
A Victory Condition is a condition explicitly defined by the
rules as a vi
(Almost reintroduced the a similar bug that's been scammed before).
I withdraw my previous proposal, Fixing Victory.
Proposal: Fixing Victory, AI 1.7
--
Amend Rule 2343 (Victory Cases) by changing its title to
"Victory Conditi
I vote for coppro.
--
ais523
On 10/21/2011 04:45 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> On 10/20/2011 08:48 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Promotor:
>> * Voting hereby begins
>> - Candidates are scshunt and Wooble (Arkady English's attempted
>> attempted acceptance was NttPF)
>> - Each active first-class player has one vote
>>
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, ais523 wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 14:01 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Also take:
> > 1. Person A has 99 hard-earned points, 1 point short of a win;
> > 2. Person B is mad at A, and illegally gets Person A one point
> > and declares em the winner.
> > If there's no
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3109
>
> == CFJ 3109 ==
>
> Bucky has satisfied the Victory Condition of Being Bucky
>
> =
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> 7125 3.0 Tanner Relax / Stroke Hell
AGAINST
> 7126 1.0 scshunt The Government Needs to be More Transparent
FOR
> 7127 1.0 omd
FOR
> 7128 3.0 scshunt Fix 2351
FOR
> 7129 1.0 scshunt Why did we repeal that victory condition?
AGAINS
On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 15:02 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ok, let's try:
>
> I create the following -- delimited promise and transfer it to ais523:
>
>I, the Herald, publish as part of my monthly report that BlogNomic
>h
I suggest that a Player file a Motion to Reconsider CfJ 3109. Among other
objections, the judgment is inconsistent with the judge's arguments. All
information necessary to render a judgment of TRUE or FALSE is public, and the
statement makes precise sense even after determining that the docume
On 10/23/2011 06:04 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I suggest that a Player file a Motion to Reconsider CfJ 3109. Among
> other objections, the judgment is inconsistent with the judge's
> arguments. All information necessary to render a judgment of TRUE or
> FALSE is public, and the statement makes preci
Sorry, forgot to accept last time.
Based on Arkady's apparent lack of interest in being the Rulekeepor (e
hasn't published any reports), I intend, with 4 support, to initiate
an election for Rulekeepor.
On 10/23/2011 06:42 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> On 10/23/2011 06:04 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> I suggest that a Player file a Motion to Reconsider CfJ 3109. Among
>> other objections, the judgment is inconsistent with the judge's
>> arguments. All information necessary to render a judgment of TRUE or
>> F
2On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 19:58, omd wrote:
> Sorry, forgot to accept last time.
>
> Based on Arkady's apparent lack of interest in being the Rulekeepor (e
> hasn't published any reports), I intend, with 4 support, to initiate
> an election for Rulekeepor.
>
>
I support.
-scshunt
>> Based on Arkady's apparent lack of interest in being the Rulekeepor (e
>> hasn't published any reports), I intend, with 4 support, to initiate
>> an election for Rulekeepor.
>
> I support.
I support.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> Whoops. I intend with two Support to take the quoted action.
I support; I may as well just judge it IRRELEVANT.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Pavitra wrote:
>>> Based on Arkady's apparent lack of interest in being the Rulekeepor (e
>>> hasn't published any reports), I intend, with 4 support, to initiate
>>> an election for Rulekeepor.
>>
>> I support.
>
> I support.
>
So do I.
~ Roujo
I go on hold.
At some point, I'll read the ruleset then probably come off hold.
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> > Whoops. I intend with two Support to take the quoted action.
>
> I support; I may as well just judge it IRRELEVANT.
I support and do so.
I think FALSE is right here (not undetermined nor irrelevant).
Just
Roujo wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Pavitra wrote:
Based on Arkady's apparent lack of interest in being the Rulekeepor (e
hasn't published any reports), I intend, with 4 support, to initiate
an election for Rulekeepor.
>>>
>>> I support.
>>
>> I support.
>>
>
> So do I
- Original Message -
From: Kerim Aydin
To: Agora Business
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 3109, 3111 assigned to omd
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> > Whoops. I intend with two Supp
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I vote for coppro.
>
> --
> ais523
>
>
I also do whatver you just did.
~ Roujo
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I support and do so, nominating omd.
I accept.
On 10/23/2011 08:03 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> == CFJ 3115 ==
>
> It would be ILLEGAL for me to cash the above-quoted promise.
>
>
R2143:
While performing week
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3109
>
> == CFJ 3109 ==
>
> Bucky has satisfied the Victory Condition of Being Bucky
>
> ==
On 10/23/11 6:03 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I change all sitting players to standing.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3114
>
> == CFJ 3114 ==
>
> If I cashed the above-quoted promise, it would cause G. to
>
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, woggle wrote:
> On 10/23/11 6:03 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > I change all sitting players to standing.
> >
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3114
> >
> > == CFJ 3114 ==
> >
> > If I cash
39 matches
Mail list logo
