On the off chance that this works, I claim a 5 shiny reward from Agora
for my Promotor report.
-Aris
I support, because VJ Rada did not publish the report e pledged to publish.
On 11/19/2017 7:00 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
I made a pledge to publish a weekly report detailing pledges that should be
retracted. Ironically, I didn't this week. I therefore intend to call in
that pledge w/ agoran consent.
I support.
On 11/19/2017 5:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 2:11 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
I issue myself a Red Card by Summary Judgement. This is for the offense of
failing to pay for an Estate (Erehwon). This time period to pay actually
expired just 4 days ago, so this is _well_
Given that, I change my vote on 7974 to AGAINST.
On 11/19/2017 08:26 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
>>> 7974* V.J. Rada 3.0 [2] Really minor fixes V.J.
>>> Rada 1 AP
>>>
>> FOR. Note that some of these may be Rulekeepor typos; I will do my
>>
CoE: 3504?
On 11/19/2017 03:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> CFJ 3504 is the statement "This is a CFJ" called by V.J. Rada.
>
> I assign CFJ 3504 to Alexis.
>
> [Depending on the judgement of CFJ 3503, the above actions may fail
> if the CFJ wasn't called].
>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 19, 2017, at 7:00 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> I made a pledge to publish a weekly report detailing pledges that should be
> retracted. Ironically, I didn't this week. I therefore intend to call in
> that pledge w/ agoran consent.
I support.
-o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed w
I transfer one shiny to telnaior for proving my theory about strangely
overlapping esoteric nerd culture correct.
And no, I haven't watched any of their stuff (with the exception of magic
stuff) in far far too long.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Telnaior wrote:
> I transfer one shiny to V
I transfer one shiny to VJ Rada in appreciation of the reference.
(You have been keeping up with Desert Bus yeah?)
On 2017-11-20 11:07, VJ Rada wrote:
I create the following proposal. Everything is fine. This is not an attempt
to win the Order of the Occult Hand which everyone has forgotten abo
I create the following proposal. Everything is fine. This is not an attempt
to win the Order of the Occult Hand which everyone has forgotten about
apparently. Disclaimer: The previous sentence is probably false
Title: Everything is fine
AI: 2
Create a power 2 rule called "Lars Gerhart was Never He
I made a pledge to publish a weekly report detailing pledges that should be
retracted. Ironically, I didn't this week. I therefore intend to call in
that pledge w/ agoran consent.
--
>From V.J. Rada
I support.
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 18:30 Owen Jacobson, wrote:
>
> > Because V.J. Rada did not pay 1011 shinies as a single action, eir
> purchase
> > failed, and this CFJ is FALSE. E retains all of eir shinies, because
> they did
> > not in the end accomplish their clearly stated goal.
>
> I inte
Yeah that's a good explanation that makes sense. I retract my intent (is
this possible again?)
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Madeline wrote:
> Alright, so, the idea of it was that the sentence made two claims. Claim 1
> was (hopefully obviously by now) false. The question I got stuck on was
> Because V.J. Rada did not pay 1011 shinies as a single action, eir purchase
> failed, and this CFJ is FALSE. E retains all of eir shinies, because they did
> not in the end accomplish their clearly stated goal.
I intend, with two support, to file a motion to reconsider.
I agree with the overar
Excuse me: I support because I didn't pay for the estate, contrary to my
pledge.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:15 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> I support: I didn't pay for the Estate.
>
> Pledges are great right now! I love them. The "explicit restatement" rule
> should be removed though.
>
> On Mon, Nov 20,
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 2:11 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> I issue myself a Red Card by Summary Judgement. This is for the offense of
> failing to pay for an Estate (Erehwon). This time period to pay actually
> expired just 4 days ago, so this is _well_ within the statute of
> limitations (and thus, my ple
I issue myself a Red Card by Summary Judgement. This is for the offense of
failing to pay for an Estate (Erehwon). This time period to pay actually
expired just 4 days ago, so this is _well_ within the statute of
limitations (and thus, my pledge was not necessary). Failing to pay for an
Estate is u
I support.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to call in V.J Rada's pledge below. CFJ
> 3597 determined that e failed to pay for the estate validly. I
> additionally request an appropriately strong sentenc
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to call in V.J Rada's pledge below. CFJ
3597 determined that e failed to pay for the estate validly. I
additionally request an appropriately strong sentence, as the
violation here was part of a deliberate scam, rather than being say an
accidental late report.
-Aris
Let's see what the reaction to this one is; I won't be surprised if my
ruling is controversial.
Judge's arguments for CFJ 3597
The caller's arguments do a pretty good job of summing up the situation.
V.J. Rada had to pay 1,011 shinies to Agora; instead of paying them at once,
as is customary, e p
I judge 3596 to be IRRELEVANT. By CFJ 3595, you can't do
the task in general, so the lack of asset specification
doesn't impact the result (not picking true/false because
of the wording of the statement).
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Below we have 3596, I link it to my previous on
Judgement in CFJ 3595:
So first: I think, for the good of the game, that judges should be
flexible in interpreting Rules that have an obviously purposeful rhyme
scheme or metrical structure, and allow loose synonyms etc. in the name
of creativity.
With that in mind, I translate the sentence in
I support, with the following arguments:
One reason the judge gives for judging as e does is that the case has
been rendered moot by a rule change. This is not always a bad choice,
but forgets that it's not moot for the Herald-initiated Agoran decision
that may or may not be ongoing.
On Mon,
Uck. If it *does* exist, I assign it the number 3604, not 3504.
(and if I failed to assign it to Alexis and CAN, I now do so).
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> CFJ 3504 is the statement "This is a CFJ" called by V.J. Rada.
>
> I assign CFJ 3504 to Alexis.
>
> [Depending on the judgem
I don't understand 3594 either. I intend to call a motion for
reconsideration with two support on the grounds that 1: the judgement
seemed to consider best interests of the game using facts after the calling
of the CFJ, rather than the best interests of the game with each blanket
interpretation of
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 at 04:28 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> quorum
I vote FOR on 7973, 7979, 7980.
I vote PRESENT on 7975.
天火狐
On 19 November 2017 at 04:27, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For
I vote as follows:
On 11/19/2017 4:27 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 4.0, the voting method is A
CoE: My emotion is Joyous.
On 11/19/2017 6:26 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
Registrar's Weekly Report
(all ti
I identify the lack of clarity in the distribution announcement as to the
matters being decided, as the proposal numbers are unclear for
voting and record keeping (for r107).
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I CoE my assignment of numbers to the below proposals, and assign the
> one
Coe: the proposal you list as pp2 has the wrong headers
(Should be my proposal with a different title)
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For th
I pend the below proposal with AP.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Coming at this from the other end, what are the minimum changes needed
> to make this economy function, including stamps?
> [I will wait before pending]
>
> I submit the following Proposal, 'Minimal Econ reforms', AI-
Upon further consideration, I change my vote on 7976 to AGAINST.
On 2017-11-19 21:19, Telnaior wrote:
On 2017-11-19 20:27, Aris Merchant wrote:
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this deci
I vote as follows:
On 11/19/2017 04:27 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> quorum is 4.0, the voting meth
On 2017-11-19 20:27, Aris Merchant wrote:
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 4.0, the voting method is AI-majority and the val
I vote as follows
> 7973* Aris 1.0 Sky Pillars ArisOP
[1]
AGAINST
> 7974* V.J. Rada3.0 [2] Really minor fixes V.J. Rada 1 AP
FOR
> 7975* ATMunn, [3] 2.0 Auctions v6 ATMunn 1 AP
FOR
> 7976* Alexis, [4] 1.7
I CoE my assignment of numbers to the below proposals, and assign the
ones shown below in their place as a revision. The previous numbers
were taken.
7979* G. 1.0 Plain Old BriberyG. 1 AP
7980* ATMunn, [5] 1.0 [6] Alexis 1 A
I AP-pend the below. Still no title unfortunately (can't be changed
after-the-fact, and the initial submission was valid), but that isn't
a big deal.
-Aris
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 6:07 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> I give the below proposal the title "Rewards Time Limit Fix", or, if it was
> not submitted
37 matches
Mail list logo
