On Jan 23, 2008 6:04 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal: Generalize Game Actions (AI=3)
>
> Create a new Rule, at Power=4, titled "Dictator", with the text:
> comex CAN and may at any time by announcement make any explicit
> change whatsoever to the gamestate, including but
On Jan 24, 2008 9:19 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following Proposal, entitled "Smaller Contracts" and set
> its AI to 1.5:
> {{
> In Rule 1742, replace the text
> Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among
> themselves with the intention t
On Jan 24, 2008 9:46 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this still leaves small contracts in a bad state under the rules,
> given that amending, terminating and changing the parties (except by adding
> new parties (?(*))) to contracts with <= 1 parties basically can't happen,
>
On Thursday 24 January 2008 17:20:44 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 9:46 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think this still leaves small contracts in a bad state under the rules,
> > given that amending, terminating and changing the parties (except by
> > adding new parties (?(
On Jan 24, 2008 10:55 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CFJ 1796 says that "[p]recedent holds that agreement is not regulated and that
> contracts are entered into by agreement" which thus allowed comex to enter
> into an agreement that was apparently already a contract and apparently
On Jan 24, 2008 11:46 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Enact a new rule titled "Defining Contract Changes", with Power 1.5:
>
> A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following:
>
> (a) a person who intends to be bound by a contract becoming a party
> to th
On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:04:04 comex wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 11:46 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Enact a new rule titled "Defining Contract Changes", with Power 1.5:
> >
> > A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following:
> >
> > (a) a person who inte
On Jan 24, 2008 3:56 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since that would not (directly) change the parties or the text of the elephant
> contract, I don't intend to regulate it through this proposal (and I defined
> Contract Change and capitalized it to avoid covering "other" changes of
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Create a new Rule, at Power=4, titled "Spectator", with the text:
> Any person CAN and may at any time by observing this rule make
> any change whatsoever to the gamestate, including but not
> limited to enacting, repealing, or amending a rule
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
Create a new Rule, at Power=4, titled "Spectator", with the text:
Any person CAN and may at any time by observing this rule make
any change whatsoever to the gamestate, including but not
limited to enacting, repealing, or am
On Jan 24, 2008 4:44 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a hole in that the inquiry case may (esp., considering the
> appeals process) take longer than a week to resolve? Is the rule
> explicit enough about the document not self-ratifying if an inquiry case
> is in progress?
It
Levi wrote:
The recent voting results and self-ratification of those results I think
concluded that voting results self ratify, even if not published by the
assessor.
Any message claiming to resolve an Agoran decision self-ratifies
(unless challenged in time). This is intentional, to paper o
On Jan 24, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
Proposal: Indeterminize Game Actions (AI=3)
Create a new Rule, at Power=4, titled "Spectator", with the text:
Any person CAN and may at any time by observing this rule make
any change whatsoever to the gamestate, including but not
On Wednesday 23 January 2008 16:04:47 comex wrote:
> Proposal: Generalize Game Actions (AI=3)
>
> Create a new Rule, at Power=4, titled "Dictator", with the text:
> comex CAN and may at any time by announcement make any explicit
> change whatsoever to the gamestate, including but not li
If CFJ1879 returns TRUE, I suggest contacting the Hon. Minister of
Foreign Affairs Maxime Bernier at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
..
Pavitra
On Jan 24, 2008 9:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1881
>
> == CFJ 1881 ==
>
> rule 2029 requires Agorans to always Dance a Powerful Dance.
>
> =
On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:28:56 comex wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 10:25 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Your proposed rule is power 4. R101 is power 3. So, your proposed rule
> > takes precedence over R101.
>
> Only by virtue of R1482, which R101 would take precedence over.
R
pikhq wrote:
On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:05:13 comex wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008 9:41 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"This rule takes precedence over all other rules." is needlessly
redundant; the only other Power 4 rule is the Fountain. CFJs have
determined that you need not ha
On Jan 24, 2008 10:32 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By making it non-binding, one makes it so that any party may leave the
> contract. ;p
Leaving contracts is regulated, and can only be done as specified by
the Rules-- regardless of whether the contract is binding.
On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:33:51 comex wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 9:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1881
> >
> > == CFJ 1881 ==
> >
> > rule 2029 requires Agora
On Jan 24, 2008 9:41 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "This rule takes precedence over all other rules." is needlessly redundant;
> the only other Power 4 rule is the Fountain. CFJs have determined that you
> need not hail Eris, so you're good. ;)
>
>
Not necessarily. Let's say I
On Jan 24, 2008 9:49 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The AFO leaves this agreement (not necessarily a contract (a contract must be
> binding, the above is not)).
It can't without my consent (not given).
On Jan 24, 2008 8:06 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 9:49 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The AFO leaves this agreement (not necessarily a contract (a contract must
> > be
> > binding, the above is not)).
>
> It can't without my consent (not given).
As p
On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:05:13 comex wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 9:41 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "This rule takes precedence over all other rules." is needlessly
> > redundant; the only other Power 4 rule is the Fountain. CFJs have
> > determined that you need not hail E
On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:36:08 comex wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 10:32 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > By making it non-binding, one makes it so that any party may leave the
> > contract. ;p
>
> Leaving contracts is regulated, and can only be done as specified by
> the Rules-
On Jan 24, 2008 10:37 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In honor of this brilliant proto-judgement, I (as an unregulated action),
> give
> you two Bead Necklaces.
> I recommend trading them with other, more barbaric, Nomics, which consider
> such things a rarity.
>
>
I congratulate
On Jan 24, 2008 10:39 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You may as well have said:
> 1. Any party may leave this contract by announcement.
Binding:
3. Imposing or commanding adherence to a commitment, an obligation,
or a duty: binding arbitration; a binding agreement.
The agreeme
On Jan 24, 2008 10:42 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 10:37 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In honor of this brilliant proto-judgement, I (as an unregulated action),
> give
> > you two Bead Necklaces.
> > I recommend trading them with other, more barbari
On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:45:08 comex wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 10:39 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You may as well have said:
> > 1. Any party may leave this contract by announcement.
>
> Binding:
> 3. Imposing or commanding adherence to a commitment, an obligation,
> or
On Jan 24, 2008 8:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This, then, would be any Oligarch who is not an officeholder. The
> Oligarchy was a paid position, something which we don't have an exact
> equivalent or namesake of.
Not always. More generally, an Oligarch was a player empowered to
vot
On Jan 24, 2008 10:46 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 10:42 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 2008 10:37 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In honor of this brilliant proto-judgement, I (as an unregulated
> action),
> > give
> > > you t
On Jan 24, 2008 8:47 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I request to be registered as a "watcher".
> If the above causes me to be registered as a player, then I switch my
> posture to Leaning.
R869 is pretty clear on the definition of "to be registered", so I'm
interpreting this as a succ
On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:51:39 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 8:47 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I request to be registered as a "watcher".
> > If the above causes me to be registered as a player, then I switch my
> > posture to Leaning.
>
> R869 is pretty clear on the def
On Jan 24, 2008 10:48 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Not always. More generally, an Oligarch was a player empowered to
> vote on ordinary proposals.
> Not really. In fact, we have in the past defined Senators and
> Oligarchs simultaneously, so they're pretty clearly separate things.
You're
On Jan 24, 2008 8:53 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As am I. I'm guessing that Ben Caplan here wants to be known as 'watcher'.
Perhaps, but e signed as Pavitra, so that's how I'm recording em.
-root
On Jan 24, 2008 10:25 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your proposed rule is power 4. R101 is power 3. So, your proposed rule takes
> precedence over R101.
Only by virtue of R1482, which R101 would take precedence over.
On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:28:10 comex wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 10:10 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As pikhq notes, contracts are binding. So one might interpret your
> > change to the contract to make it non-binding as an act of
> > dissolution.
>
> Nonsense. They merely have
On Jan 24, 2008 10:10 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As pikhq notes, contracts are binding. So one might interpret your
> change to the contract to make it non-binding as an act of
> dissolution.
Nonsense. They merely have to be made "with the intention that [they]
be binding". There
On Jan 24, 2008 11:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Judicial case ID numbers (Rule 2161)
>
> Highest orderly: 1880
> Disorderly:
>
This should probably be 1882.
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Friday 25 January 2008 04:02:07 Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1882
>
> == CFJ 1882 ==
>
> watcher is a Player
>
>
Iammars wrote:
Judicial case ID numbers (Rule 2161)
Highest orderly: 1880
Disorderly:
This should probably be 1882.
Ah yes, sorry. I'll move that up top so it's less likely to be
overlooked in future.
woggle wrote:
There is some evidence that Pravita did not intend to become a player. This
might be seen to create a R101 issue, since per R2171, the registration
process is to preserve player's rights as if entering the rules were a
binding agreement. Problematically, every relevant rule here
42 matches
Mail list logo
