Ed Murphy wrote:
Does this mean that you are the author of Proposal 5269?
I believe no one is. That's what I have recorded for it, and for the
precedent proposal 4963.
-zefram
On 11/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby call for judgement, barring comex, on the statement Partnership
1's Contest allowed any first-class player to become a party. Arguments:
Gratuitous arguments:
It seems odd that a message sent *after* the contest was formed could
On 11/4/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
First, the veracity of the statement is not irrelevant to the game, as
the outcome of this case determines whether or not the Initiator wins
the game; a judgement of IRRELEVANT is thus inappropriate to this
case.
So? The
On 11/4/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
First, the veracity of the statement is not irrelevant to the game, as
the outcome of this case determines whether or not the Initiator wins
the game; a judgement of IRRELEVANT is thus inappropriate to this
case.
So? The
On 11/4/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The statement could equally be equivalent to Judging UNDECIDABLE is
[generally] permissible (FALSE), Judging UNDECIDABLE is [sometimes]
permissible (TRUE), or even Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible [in
this case] (FALSE). As it stands, it
On 11/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby assign comex as judge of CFJ 1779.
Pseudo-judgement: UNDETERMINED, per the clear precedent set by CFJ 1744.
root wrote:
On 11/4/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
Second, the statement of this case is deliberately vague; it does not
specify the circumstances to which it applies, but an UNDECIDABLE
judgement is permissible iff it is appropriate. Therefore, a
judgement of
Zefram wrote:
There would normally be a proposal distribution at this time, but
there are no proposals to distribute.
Proposal ID numbers:
highest orderly: 5286
disorderly: none
Proposal pool: empty
I had a proposal in the message
Ed Murphy wrote:
pikhq initiated a criminal case in
Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I thought it was rather unclear, and possibly thereby ineffective,
but not for your reason. I thought that the identification of the
defendant was clear, but the rule allegedly breached and particularly
If all ten thousand CFJs referred to as Sparta-Sparta in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] exist, then I spend 2500 blue VCs
to make Zefram gain 1250 blue VCs.
Josiah Worcester wrote:
If all ten thousand CFJs referred to as Sparta-Sparta in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] exist, then I spend 2500 blue VCs
to make Zefram gain 1250 blue VCs.
nttpf.
-zefram
Josiah Worcester wrote:
If all ten thousand CFJs referred to as Sparta-Sparta in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] exist, then I spend 40 blue VCs
to make Zefram gain 20 blue VCs.
nttpf.
-zefram
root wrote:
The statement could equally be equivalent to Judging UNDECIDABLE is
[generally] permissible (FALSE), Judging UNDECIDABLE is [sometimes]
permissible (TRUE), or even Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible [in
this case] (FALSE). As it stands, it contains zero context, which in
my eyes
On 11/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If all ten thousand CFJs referred to as Sparta-Sparta in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] exist, then I spend 2 blue VCs
to make pikhq gain 1 blue VC.
-zefram
I KNEW that allowing the CotC discretion over linked assignments was a
bad idea! g
On Sunday 04 November 2007 16:50:34 comex wrote:
I KNEW that allowing the CotC discretion over linked assignments was
a bad idea! g
I think not. It eliminated one of your attempts at spamming the
courts. :)
On Sunday 04 November 2007 17:02:35 comex wrote:
Perhaps, but Zefram could have easily have kept the VCs. Honestly
it seems contrary to the spirit of Agora that he didn't.
Perhaps Zefram keeps his word even outside of the public forum? :p
comex wrote:
Perhaps, but Zefram could have easily have kept the VCs.
pikhq and I made an agreement to destroy all but one of the VCs.
We both wanted the VCs to not exist, as is evidenced by our voting on
relevant proposals.
seems contrary to the spirit of Agora that he didn't.
It is very much
On 11/4/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
The statement could equally be equivalent to Judging UNDECIDABLE is
[generally] permissible (FALSE), Judging UNDECIDABLE is [sometimes]
permissible (TRUE), or even Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible [in
this case] (FALSE). As
On 11/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object. It's not part of the CotC's report, and its accuracy is
in doubt.
Proto: Public claims of personhood are self-ratifying, to avoid
gamestate recalculation.
On 11/4/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object. It's not part of the CotC's report, and its accuracy is
in doubt.
Proto: Public claims of personhood are self-ratifying, to avoid
gamestate recalculation.
I don't think that works.
20 matches
Mail list logo
