Ian Kelly wrote:
>I think that the arguments were clearly apropos to the CFJ, and that
>the physical ordering is irrelevant. On the other hand, the CotC
>apparently isn't currently required to reproduce the arguments at all,
>so I shouldn't complain too loudly.
My policy is to reproduce arguments
On Sunday 28 October 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Exit clauses
You lose the paragraph about public contracts.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Sunday 28 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> I hereby assign Zefram as judge of CFJ 1772.
(I should have barred you)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Quibble-mode on.
> However, taking game actions other than registration certainly
> does not constitute "explicit, willful consent" to be bound by the rules.
Registration does constitute explicit willful consent, and once
you've given that consent you don't of course need to "re-consent"
for eac
comex wrote:
> This could conflict
>with the higher-powered Rule 2169 if there was difficulty in applying
>equity cases to the Rules, but there is not.
Who do you imagine might judge your equity case, by the way?
-zefram
Zefram wrote:
I hereby push pikhq over.
This should really cite the CFJ(s) requiring you to do so (I think
it's one or more of 1735, 1756, 1757 in this case).
On Sunday 28 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> comex wrote:
> > This could
> > conflict with the higher-powered Rule 2169 if there was difficulty in
> > applying equity cases to the Rules, but there is not.
>
> Who do you imagine might judge your equ
On Sunday 28 October 2007 10:57:25 Zefram wrote:
> pikhq's proposal remains in the proposal pool. pikhq has the option
> to withdraw it. If not withdrawn, it will be distributed in the
> next batch (on Wednesday).
>
> -zefram
>
I withdraw my proposal.
On 10/28/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 28 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> > comex wrote:
> > > This could
> > > conflict with the higher-powered Rule 2169 if there was difficulty in
> > > applying equity cases to the Rules, but t
On 10/28/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, taking game actions other than registration certainly
> > does not constitute "explicit, willful consent" to be bound by the rules.
>
> Registration does constitute explicit willful consent, and once
> you've given that consent you do
Zefram wrote:
Player (* = inactive)VLDP EVLOP VVLOP VCs
--
*Manu 1 4 41W
Pavitra1 5 5
*Quazie1 4 4 1R 1B
M
Ed Murphy wrote:
>In the message in question, comex satisfied all three of Rule 1504's
>requirements to initiate a criminal case:
You missed the fourth requirement, "by announcement". Rule 478:
A player performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that
e performs it.
comex cer
Zefram wrote:
I hereby submit the following proposal, titled "truthfulness":
{{{
Retitle rule 2149 to "Truthfulness", and amend it to read
A person SHALL NOT make a false statement in any public message
while knowing that the statement is false or being reckless as
to its ve
comex wrote:
>[Truthiness is going to die; why not reduce useless clutter at the same
>time?]
Why remove useful clarification?
-zefram
On 10/27/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Office Holder Since Last R2154 Stability
Speakerroot16 Sep 077 Sep 07 T
With the adoption of "Ministers Without
comex wrote:
>On behalf of the AFO:
>The AFO hereby initiates 10,000 inquiry cases,
I see you've graduated from merely bad play to outright destructive play.
-zefram
comex wrote:
On behalf of the AFO:
The AFO hereby initiates 10,000 inquiry cases, barring Zefram, for the
statement:
- This is Sparta
If this works, I'm only entering the first and last ones into the
database, with an explanatory comment.
On 10/28/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is someone responsible for tracking who the current Ministers Without
> Portfolio
> are and publishing this information? I can't see where this is in the rules.
It's a patent title, so it's tracked by the Herald.
-root
On 10/28/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * BobTHJ was thrown in the chokey, but this was changed to an apology sentence
>upon appeal
Now that you mention it, I don't recall em ever posting eir apology.
Too bad e deregistered.
-root
comex wrote:
> The AFO hereby initiates 10,000 inquiry cases, barring Zefram, for the=20
> statement:
I say I do, therefore I do is a convenience, but it's not enshrined in
the case of abuse, in particular if the difficulty it causes is greater
than the convenience it allows. This does not seem
On Sunday 28 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> I see you've graduated from merely bad play to outright destructive
> play.
>
> -zefram
Contrary to this claim, I'm not trying to be destructive. Rather, I'm
creating a massive amount of Blue VCs, which temporarily make it much
cheaper to modify VVLOP
On Sunday 28 October 2007 16:09:39 comex wrote:
> On behalf of the AFO:
> The AFO hereby initiates 10,000 inquiry cases, barring Zefram, for
the
> statement:
> - This is Sparta
>
I make the following proposal:
Create a rule named "Judicial abuse", with power 1.4, with the
following text:
A
On 10/28/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>b) The stability of each office.
Stability is a switch, so the IADoP is already required to track it
for those offices for which it is non-Null.
-root
Levi wrote:
The IADoP's report includes the following:
b) The stability of each office.
Already covered by Rule 2162 (c).
Ian Kelly wrote:
On 10/28/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is someone responsible for tracking who the current Ministers Without Portfolio
are and publishing this information? I can't see where this is in the rules.
It's a patent title, so it's tracked by the Herald.
-root
Ok, th
On Sunday 28 October 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I say I do, therefore I do is a convenience, but it's not enshrined in
> the case of abuse, in particular if the difficulty it causes is greater
> than the convenience it allows. This does not seem to me to be clear
> submission of 10,000 CFJs.
>
> I
Ed Murphy wrote:
Levi wrote:
The IADoP's report includes the following:
b) The stability of each office.
Already covered by Rule 2162 (c).
Thanks (and root also for your answer)
I was looking for something like that, but was looking in the officer's
reporting rules.
Levi
On Sunday 28 October 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The AFO spends 2 Red VCs to increase Murphy's Red VCs by 1.
I gave you the VLOP; you could have given Levi or I the VC...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On 10/28/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 28 October 2007 16:09:39 comex wrote:
> > On behalf of the AFO:
> > The AFO hereby initiates 10,000 inquiry cases, barring Zefram, for
> the
> > statement:
> > - This is Sparta
> >
>
> I make the following proposal:
>
> Create a r
Hmmm, I was probably meant to assign people to the prerogatives now that
the proposal was adopted, but not being speaker since AFO's win, it's
now eir reponsibility :)
Levi
Actually, I'm not sure this is the case. Speaker is the player who has held the
title of Minister Without Portfolio t
Levi Stephen wrote:
>Actually, I'm not sure this is the case. Speaker is the player who has held
>the title of Minister Without Portfolio the longest.
That's a three- or four-way tie.
-zefram
On Sunday 28 October 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> It was repealed a year ago because it was deemed restrictive and
> unnecessary (apparently a mistake), and because crimes and infractions
> were going out the window.
No, it wasn't. Excess CFJs were in the ruleset immediately before the
switch to cri
On 10/28/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I'm not sure this is the case. Speaker is the player who has held
> the
> title of Minister Without Portfolio the longest.
>
> So, I think Eris was Speaker? Now it might be root?
Eris, because e's been registered longer.
As to repo
comex wrote:
On Sunday 28 October 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
The AFO spends 2 Red VCs to increase Murphy's Red VCs by 1.
I gave you the VLOP; you could have given Levi or I the VC...
Yes, but now I can spend it on one of you guys.
On 10/28/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 28 October 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I say I do, therefore I do is a convenience, but it's not enshrined in
> > the case of abuse, in particular if the difficulty it causes is greater
> > than the convenience it allows. This does not see
comex wrote:
On behalf of the AFO:
The AFO hereby initiates 10,000 inquiry cases, barring Zefram, for the
statement:
- This is Sparta
I recommend assigning chaotic ID numbers to these, if they are
indeed successful.
On 10/28/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 28 October 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > It was repealed a year ago because it was deemed restrictive and
> > unnecessary (apparently a mistake), and because crimes and infractions
> > were going out the window.
>
> No, it wasn't. Excess CFJs
On 10/28/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
> >Assessor's Voting Limits and Credits Report
>
> There should be some violet VCs floating around due to patent title
> awards. And, presuming that that win on points actually occurred, a
> violet VC loss for whoever lost the PT of
root wrote:
> It was over a year ago. My recollection is that there was some
> discussion about whether Excess CFJs should be retained or not, but I
> could be wrong.
It was still in place around Jan-April 2007 when I was CotC. When
CFJ 1610 came up there was discussion about removing it, but i
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>I make the following proposal:
>The above 10,000 inquiry cases are removed from the game.
"The above" only makes sense in the context of your message, and will
be quite meaningless in the context of a proposal.
-zefram
On 10/28/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was still in place around Jan-April 2007 when I was CotC. When
> CFJ 1610 came up there was discussion about removing it, but it
> didn't happen until some other time (maybe we all rightly thought
> it was a bad idea to remove, and Zefram sl
comex wrote:
> This seems destructive. It might deter some people (such as me) who
> consider 100kb messages harmful to the game, but it wouldn't really change
> the possibility of scams involving a large number of actions.
Yes it would have, with you, you just admitted it. If you're going to p
Pikhq:
> All changes to the game state caused by these cases are
> removed from the game.
Including the changes contained in this sentence? :)
-Goethe
On Sunday 28 October 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Pikhq:
> > All changes to the game state caused by these cases are
> > removed from the game.
>
> Including the changes contained in this sentence? :)
>
> -Goethe
Non-emergency proposals ought not to use the word "gamestate" IMHO.
signature.asc
De
On 10/28/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/28/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually, I'm not sure this is the case. Speaker is the player who has held
> > the
> > title of Minister Without Portfolio the longest.
> >
> > So, I think Eris was Speaker? Now it might b
comex wrote:
On 10/28/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/28/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, I'm not sure this is the case. Speaker is the player who has held the
title of Minister Without Portfolio the longest.
So, I think Eris was Speaker? Now it might be roo
On Sunday 28 October 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
> I assign the following prerogatives:
NttPF
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Sunday 28 October 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
> > Now that the AFO has won it's you. Assign prerogatives!
>
> Ah, so it is. I thought root had been registered longer than me, but
> that's not the case :)
Besides, it's not you, it's root, so far as I can tell. :/
signature.asc
Description: Thi
On 10/28/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/28/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/28/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Actually, I'm not sure this is the case. Speaker is the player who has
> > > held the
> > > title of Minister Without Portfolio the longe
On 10/28/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Now that the AFO has won it's you. Assign prerogatives!
>
> No, Levi was Speaker when the AFO won. Eris is Speaker now.
And in any case, prerogatives can't be assigned until the beginning of
the month.
-root
On Sunday 28 October 2007 16:42:51 Josiah Worcester wrote:
> root argued that proposals are one possible method for creating
> judicial cases with more than one subclass. I find this TRUE,
> because a proposal, if agreed upon, can make explicit changes to the
> gamestate.
>
> Consider the foll
Pikhq wrote:
On 10/28/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Josiah Worcester wrote:
I make the following proposal:
The above 10,000 inquiry cases are removed from the game.
"The above" only makes sense in the context of your message, and will
be quite meaningless in the context of a proposal.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Assessor's Voting Limits and Credits Report
There should be some violet VCs floating around due to patent title
awards. And, presuming that that win on points actually occurred, a
violet VC loss for whoever lost the PT of Minister Without Portfolio.
I'll work
53 matches
Mail list logo
