Actually I'm going to think about Faking some more, I retract my Faking
proposal in this thread.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:36 AM Rebecca wrote:
> Actually, another idea: what if I just removed the intent bit and made any
> false statement of fact a crime, but I also included a clause like this
>
Actually, another idea: what if I just removed the intent bit and made any
false statement of fact a crime, but I also included a clause like this
"Other rules notwithstanding, the Referee has discretion to levy a fine of
0 blots for Faking if the false statement of fact was, in eir judgement,
clea
Sorry, I retract my proposal below and resubmit it with the same attributes
except I also make PSS a coauthor
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:32 AM Rebecca wrote:
> I retract my proposal " This is not unlike defamation law" and create the
> following. I won't remove the bit about formal statements of i
I retract my proposal " This is not unlike defamation law" and create the
following. I won't remove the bit about formal statements of intent not
constituting faking, because it's already in the rule and I think it makes
sense as there are already rules against ratifying false things, but I will
fo
I create this proposal
Title: This is not unlike defamation law
AI 1
Chamber: Justice
Text: Amend rule 2471 "No Faking" so that it states
A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that (1) is a statement of pure
and verifiable fact about the game state of Agora and (2) is false at the
time the st
On 6/3/20 8:30 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote:
>> I think that fixing this would be good, but I think R1586 might
>> resolve that specific risk:
>>
>> A rule, contract, or regulation that refers to an entity by name
>> refers to the entity that had that name when the rule first
> I think that fixing this would be good, but I think R1586 might
> resolve that specific risk:
>
> A rule, contract, or regulation that refers to an entity by name
> refers to the entity that had that name when the rule first came
> to include that reference, even if the entity's
I pend the referred to proposals by destroying 20 bills, trading them
for shinies with ACU, and then spending those shinies.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> I destroy 20 notes and trade them for shinies. I create and pend with
>> s
Yes, and if not I retract both of them.
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Which proposal exactly did you retract, anyway? Both of them?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:13 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
>> I retract the above.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:01 PM, V.J Rada wrot
i retract the proposal referred to above.
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 3:05 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> i did retract.
>
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 8, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Aris Merchant
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:01 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
I pend t
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Fool wrote:
>> It was repealed.
> Just looked, R2393 is in the SLR posted 12 hours ago.
Wow, I'm dumb, I thought that passed. I retract "Fixed voting
auctions" and submit an identical proposal except:
> Create a Power-2 Rule titled "Auctions":
Amend Rule 2393 (A
I retract "Fixed voting auctions" and submit this proposal:
[This adds a Budget Switch and Minimum Increment, but doesn't use a
timer because I don't think it's worth it, and doesn't make VT
destruction pragmatic because I don't really want the Assessor to have
the power to decide whether to do it
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> FKA441344 wrote:
>
>> I submit a proposal with title {No Zero Length Reports}, adoption
>> index 3, and text
>
>
> Create a new rule with title "No News Is Some News" and this text:
>
> If the rules define a report as including a list, then
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Keba wrote:
> > An invasion consisting of one player? (Or miss I someone?) Did I do
> > anything wrong to deal me out?
>
> One player? Blognomic's Riddler took direct action to make you the
> Speaker; this conspira
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Proposal: Cruel and Unusual Punishment (AI=1, II=1)
>> {{
>> WHEREAS the Ruleset is so long that forcing someone to read it would
>> be a cruel and unusual punishment,
>>
>> BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that Rule 2247 be repealed.
>> }}
>
> 2247 is
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> 1.4 rounds to 1 no matter whether you tiebreak to odd or even, if you're
> rounding to the nearest integer before breaking ties.
Oh, I misread.
I retract my proposal titled "Extra votes?", and submit in its place:
Proposal: Extra votes? (AI=2
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 15:16, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I submit the following proposals:
> [snip]
>> Create a rule titled "Grand Poobah" with Power=2 and the text:
>> {{
>> Create a rule titled "The Grand
On Sunday 07 October 2007 16:29:09 Josiah Worcester wrote:
> On Sunday 07 October 2007 16:26:07 comex wrote:
> > On Sunday 07 October 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > > I vote SUPPORT on proposals 5246 through 5253.
> >
> > I CFJ on the following:
> > pikhq voted FOR a proposal on or about Sun, 7
18 matches
Mail list logo
