2008/6/24 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Contestmaster: name overlaps (in FF 3, Opera 9.5, Safari 1.3.1).
Ah, I think this is because your font size is above the default. I'll
try and fix that later.
ehird
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:36 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gratuitous argument:
While the basis of the RBOA and Protection Racket may have been the
same at the time of RBOA's registration such is no longer the
Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/6/24 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Contestmaster: name overlaps (in FF 3, Opera 9.5, Safari 1.3.1).
Ah, I think this is because your font size is above the default. I'll
try and fix that later.
XP Pro, 1024x768, no large fonts.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
In the case of a direct violation of a contract, there's not that much
point. In this case:
* An equation declaring the AFO no longer qualifies as a partnership
may or may not be effective. R591's last paragraph says that an
inquiry judgement
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Monday 23 June 2008 11:40:43 Ben Caplan wrote:
comex, would you change your behavior at all if we awarded you the
Scamster? You certainly fulfill the requirements.
Oh woops, you already have it. It was a nice theory.
Does e? I thought we thought e
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 10:21:11 Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Monday 23 June 2008 11:40:43 Ben Caplan wrote:
comex, would you change your behavior at all if we awarded you the
Scamster? You certainly fulfill the requirements.
Oh woops, you already have
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
Er, I have no idea. I think I just looked at the last Herald report -
if there was some confusion, that probably isn't super reliable.
It wasn't in my February report. It was in pikhq's March report, but
e didn't include a record of award or recent
Found this...
On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PF:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Was going to suggest it anyway. I support this. -Goethe
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote:
I nominate myself for Herald. I SUPPORT this. I consent
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As there have not been three objections, then if Enigma is not
a contest I make it into a contest with me as contestmaster.
Unsuccessful. It hasn't yet been at least four days since your notice
of intent.
-root
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Found this...
On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Later, on Feb 7th, pikhq proto'd awarding comex Scamster,
deregistering em and creating a power 4 rule banning comex from
registering. As
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Found this...
On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Later, on Feb 7th, pikhq proto'd awarding comex Scamster,
deregistering em and creating a
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So did that self-ratify?
No; reports don't self-ratify generally, just the portions of them
that detail holdings of assets. I don't think there's a good argument
to be made that a patent title is an asset since it's not
ehird wrote:
I act on behalf of ais523 to deregister.
On what authority?
comex wrote:
The proposal that would have given me that title (which I did not
want; I still want to award it to myself some day with a scam) was
incorrectly reported in the voting results as passing, while in fact
it failed.
Which proposal was that?
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
The proposal that would have given me that title (which I did not
want; I still want to award it to myself some day with a scam) was
incorrectly reported in the voting results as passing, while in fact
it failed.
Which proposal was that?
5282,
There seems to have been quite a bit of paradox theft recently,
so I've come up with this to try to clamp down on it.
Proto: Boring Paradoxes (AI=3, II=1)
Amend rule 2110 to the following:
{{{
A tortoise is an inquiry case for which the question of veracity
is UNDECIDABLE.
On 6/24/08, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This may be the basis for an out-of-court settlement between the
AFO and the plaintiffs (I'd suggest members of the AFO other than
comex might like to take the lead), which this judge would respect,
with the caveat that, since *some* members of
2008/6/24 comex [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I perform the following action on behalf of ehird: ehird deregisters.
A proto-contract, if anyone wishes to make it:
{
This contract is a pledge iff it has one member.
This is a public contract.
Parties to this contract must deregister comex at any time they
Wooble wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- it is about a situation that occured before the case was
filed (i.e. not arising from the case itself, and not occuring
after the initiation of that case)
I don't like this clause; it
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 1:24:01 Alexander Smith wrote:
There seems to have been quite a bit of paradox theft recently,
so I've come up with this to try to clamp down on it.
Proto: Boring Paradoxes (AI=3, II=1)
Amend rule 2110 to the following:
{{{
A tortoise is an inquiry case
ais523 wrote:
Proto: Boring Paradoxes (AI=3, II=1)
I would prefer this earlier suggestion, though I don't remember whose it
was: part of the cleanup procedure is that no player can satisfy this
Winning Condition for any tortoise arising from fundamentally the same
type of paradox.
On 6/24/08, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: Bankrupt
Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Bank of Agora contract is
terminated.
[It's not happening by unanimous agreement of Bankers, unless Pen
holdings are manipulated so that comex can be kicked off the board.]
I am not a
2008/6/24 comex [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Evidence: See http://eso-std.org/~ais523/notary-report for the current
text of the AFO.
http://eso-std.org/~ais523/notary-report#the-afo, FWIW
ehird
BobTHJ wrote:
It seems you could use a favor. Let me help you, it's the
least I can do.
Come to think of it, if the mob ever get a hold on too much of
Agora, then it could form the basis for a whole-game takeover
using the equity courts against a contract like the AAA which
most players are
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are we metagaming, or roleplaying? Is the stealing of a few crops
from a contract truly such a terrible scam that it is to be severely
punished?
The thing
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, comex already got kicked off? Okay, the AFO agrees to terminating
the Bank of Agora contract. (It isn't the only way to fix things, but
it would certainly be effective if it went through.)
root, will you consent?
BobTHJ
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing particularly annoying about it to me is that you took *all*
the crops. If you had just taken a few, then fine, exchange rates
would go up, life
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, comex already got kicked off? Okay, the AFO agrees to terminating
the Bank of Agora contract. (It isn't the only way to fix things, but
it would certainly be effective if it went through.)
I got kicked off a long time
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- the statement of the CFJ's truth depends on an unknown state
within a contract
Preventing contract escalation into gamestate ambiguity is better than
allowing them and just preventing wins based on them.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
I support this. In addition to Quazie's comment above, the very definition
of Patent Title (r649) is a legal item given in recognition of a *person's*
distinction so I question the judge's assertion that Patent Titles are not
limited to persons.
We had a judicial decision
comex wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- the statement of the CFJ's truth depends on an unknown state
within a contract
Preventing contract escalation into gamestate ambiguity is better than
allowing them and just preventing wins
Elliott Hird wrote:
I'll object, just to be silly.
Go on then.
-zefram
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
non-HERALD'S PSEUDO-REPORT
Was I ever awarded the Champion (by paradox) title for my dual-wins
from CFJs 1883 and 1884?
BobTHJ
This is just a rough proto so far. The idea is to prevent scams that
involve repeating the same set of actions over and over again within a
short period of time.
A game action is liberal iff the rules explicitly indicate that it is.
A game action that is not liberal is parsimonious.
The
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:32 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except I didn't. As far as I can tell, pen holdings are still in
about the same place they were before the bank run, so if I give back
most of the crops, we'd still have a working bank system, with a
slight inflation of pens.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was I ever awarded the Champion (by paradox) title for my dual-wins
from CFJs 1883 and 1884?
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, it seems that my Championship Form was incorrect
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/6/24 Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I act on behalf of ehird to act on behalf of Teh Cltohed Mna Ni
Teh Drak Woh Wtaches Adn Nevre Sasy A Wrod Execpt Wehn Psoessed
Yb Dmeons Mcuhly Precocupied to transfer land #86
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, this is the first time you've indicated any
intention of returning any of the crops.
OK, here is what I actually said:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about this? If I
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:08 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, I am very unlikely to get 27 Vote Points (ever). But I
am not unwilling to give back what I robbed, just not for free. How
about this:
- once the Bank of Agora, or RBoA (whichever one) is stable and patched,
-
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 8:16 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2029
== CFJ 2029 ==
As a result of
Elliott Hird wrote:
If you click that in a web browser, you'll get a nice HTMLCSS version
of the Notary
proto-report.
...
Anyway, yeah. Oh, and if you're using IE the HTML version will
probably be cacophonic.
Why do people keep thinking that HTML documents must come with their own
fancy
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://eso-std.org/~ais523/notary-report
If you click that in a web browser, you'll get a nice HTMLCSS version
of the Notary
proto-report. (Why is ehird writing this? Well, I wrote the script
that converts the text
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:08 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, I am very unlikely to get 27 Vote Points (ever). But I
am not unwilling to give back what I robbed, just
avpx wrote:
Will it be updated more often than Notary reports are published? I'd
like to see contracts as they currently are rather than as they were
at the time of the last Notary report.
I update it pretty often; I updated it earlier today, for instance.
(ehird coded the code and appearance,
Coauthors to this proposal are doopy, pikhq, Chester Mealer, and Murphy
Agoran Economics
1. The title of this contract is Agoran Economics.
2. Any person may join or leave this contract at any time by announcement.
3. This contract is public.
4. Changes may be made to this
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was I ever awarded the Champion (by paradox) title for my dual-wins
from CFJs 1883 and 1884?
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, it seems
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are we metagaming, or roleplaying? Is the stealing of a few crops
from a contract truly such a terrible scam that it is to be severely
punished?
The thing particularly annoying about it
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:38 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/9/08, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex, you can now try again to contestify the PRS.
I intend, without 3 objections, to make the PRS a contest
A game action is liberal iff the rules explicitly indicate that it is.
A game action that is not liberal is parsimonious.
Define game action. Does this include contract-defined actions? If I
vote FORx4 on each of two proposals, is that one, two, or four actions?
* Any action that is required
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 4:21:50 Ben Caplan wrote:
A game action is liberal iff the rules explicitly indicate that it is.
A game action that is not liberal is parsimonious.
Define game action. Does this include contract-defined actions? If I
vote FORx4 on each of two proposals, is that one,
On Jun 24, 2008, at 2:37 PM, comex wrote:
On 6/24/08, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the first question, comex's abilities and enthusiasm should go
without saying. In fact, the less said, the better. :)
(__)
(oo)
/--\/
/ |||
* /\---/\
~~ ~~
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 24, 2008, at 2:37 PM, comex wrote:
On 6/24/08, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the first question, comex's abilities and enthusiasm should go
without saying. In fact, the less said, the better. :)
I'm a Hanging judge. I want to hang someone. Is this going to be my
chance?
On Jun 24, 2008, at 4:25 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2011
= Criminal Case 2011
=
comex breached Rule
On Jun 24, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Benjamin Schultz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 24, 2008, at 2:37 PM, comex wrote:
On 6/24/08, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the first question, comex's abilities and enthusiasm should go
without
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a Hanging judge. I want to hang someone. Is this going to be my
chance?
On Jun 24, 2008, at 4:25 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2011
=
2008/6/24 Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On second read-through: I had read that as excITEment. Now I get it.
Where's my duh button?..
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
I think it's like bahs - you need support first. You say 'Duh', then
you get two support, then 'Having
On Jun 24, 2008, at 6:32 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/6/24 Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On second read-through: I had read that as excITEment. Now I
get it.
Where's my duh button?..
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
I think it's like bahs - you need support first. You
On Jun 24, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
= Criminal Case 2011
=
comex breached Rule 1742 by continued failure to comply with the
terms of the binding Vote Market contract.
2008/6/24 Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is it worth stringing up comex over these?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr the Vicious
Yes (though I may be biased)
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A game action is liberal iff the rules explicitly indicate that it is.
A game action that is not liberal is parsimonious.
Define game action. Does this include contract-defined actions?
That's the intent. Perhaps s/game
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 7:40:01 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Ben Caplan
Define game action. Does this include contract-defined actions?
That's the intent. Perhaps s/game action/regulated action/
This still isn't clear to me. It determines unambiguously whether a
given
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. That link is put there via JS in the first place.
Ah. May I refer Sir to a copy of the DOM Level 2 Events specification, then?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is just a rough proto so far. The idea is to prevent scams that
involve repeating the same set of actions over and over again within a
short period of time.
A game action is liberal iff the rules explicitly indicate
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I doubt that this condition would ever arise in practice, and the
effort needed to check it would be hideous.
It would arise all the time if persimmons were spent as I'm suggesting,
and I don't see that the effort involved
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chambers
AI: 3
This proposal still needs a lot of work.
A player who is a member of an existing public contract CAN make the
contract into a chamber with Agoran consent.
Similar language has worked okay for contracts, but
So, CFJ 2006 has never been resolved, as it was assigned to comex and
I'm pretty sure he's not around anymore. Even though it's not
essential, it sure would be nice to get a judgment on this precedent.
What should we do?
avpx
66 matches
Mail list logo
