On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Per Rule 869, I register as a player.
Welcome Sgeo. May your registration be uneventful (if that is what
you so desire).
Where'd you hear about agora?
Sgeo wrote:
Is it too late for me to vote FORx4 on 5565? As far as I can tell, I
should have joined before the voting period in order to vote for that :/
Right. From Rule 2156:
The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities
that were active players at the start of
Murphy wrote:
Not that it affects the results, but I recorded ais523 as voting
4P, 4P, P (rather than 4A, 4A, A) on 5559 through 5561. May have
been a typo on my part. Would someone mind checking?
According to my sent items, I voted 4A, 4A, A.
--
ais532
winmail.dat
I know the real Sgeo through other forums, so I'll try to contact
em later today to verify that it is em, rather than ehird
pretending (which I doubt at this point, but just to be sure...)
Sgeo has been a watcher for a while IIRC.
--
ais523
winmail.dat
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um, can I make ihope a co-author?
Rule 106: A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is
distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its author
as being its co-author at the time of submission. You'll have
Wooble wrote:
I agree to be bound by the following, which becomes a contract when
another officer agrees to it.
Interesting idea. However, it's not obvious what it's meant to
accomplish to me; also, you should probably make salaries depend on
whether reports were done on time. The contract seems
Murphy wrote:
ehird, I inform you of this case (2048) and invite you to rebut the
argument against your guilt.
Aren't you supposed to invite em to rebut the argument in favour of
eir guilt?
--
ais523
winmail.dat
Gmail says that this was sent 1 hour ago, but I confirmed my IRC
identity with Alexander just some minutes ago.. I think Alexander is a
time traveler .
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gmail says that this was sent 1 hour ago, but I confirmed my IRC
identity with Alexander just some minutes ago.. I think Alexander is a
time traveler .
Umm, Gmail tells me eir message was sent 5 minutes ago. Sounds like a
time
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Judgement: TRUE
Arguments:
Event E1 = ehird creates a contract containing the claause Anything may
act on behalf of ehird by announcement
E2 = comex acted on ehird's behalf to cause em to deregister
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goethe wrote:
The contract mentioned in the CFJ, at the time it was filed, had the
following text:
{{{
There is a list of players called the Manroster. The Manroster is
initially ehird and ihope. Any player in the
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:05 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goethe wrote:
The contract mentioned in the CFJ, at the time it was filed, had the
following text:
{{{
There is a list of players called the Manroster.
2008/6/27 Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ehird wrote:
With 2 support I intend to bah.
I support.
I support.
--
ais523
Having recieved the neccessary support, I bah.
ehird
2008/6/27 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
comex wrote:
I initiate a criminal case against ehird, for violating Rule 2149 by
saying that e joins. In fact, as e knew, the statement was
ineffective (because e deregistered less than thirty days prior to
it), so e did not join at any time around
2008/6/27 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ais523 wrote:
Murphy wrote:
ehird, I inform you of this case (2048) and invite you to rebut the
argument against your guilt.
Aren't you supposed to invite em to rebut the argument in favour of
eir guilt?
Sorry, yes, I invite ehird to rebut the
Maybe the proposal should explicitly override R869..
Sgeo wrote:
Maybe the proposal should explicitly override R869..
There's no conflict, ehird isn't registering emself, the
proposal's registering em.
--
ais523
winmail.dat
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
Evidence on CFJ 2046:
comex wrote:
Actually, if I deregistered ehird before e attempted to change the
Manroster, ehird was no longer a player in the Manroster, so e was not
able to change it.
Ah, good catch. In that case, I may have been wrong
Goethe wrote:
Was Manroster a public contract? I've lost track of that. If so,
the official membership list doesn't change until the change is
published (R2178).
No, it was internal state of a public contract, but not state that
appeared in the text of that contract.
--
ais523
winmail.dat
2008/6/27 Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Was Manroster a public contract? I've lost track of that. If so,
the official membership list doesn't change until the change is
published (R2178). -Goethe
The Manroster is just a list in the ehrid/mna contract.
ehird
ehird wrote:
The Manroster is just a list in the ehrid/mna contract.
Not even that, the contract states the existence of such a
list and its initial value, but not its current state. So its
a list in the internal gamestate of the mna contract.
--
ais523
winmail.dat
I agree to this contract. If there are any such ordinary decisions
that I can attempt to change to democratic, I do so with 2 support. If
there are any current attempts to change an ordinary decision to
democratic that I can support, I do so.
2008/6/27 Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hmm... a contract that imposes no obligations on you, but which you
expect players to join?
--
ais523
Hey, I'm hopeful that I'll be a player soon...
ehird
2008/6/27 Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I agree to this contract. If there are any such ordinary decisions
that I can attempt to change to democratic, I do so with 2 support. If
there are any current attempts to change an ordinary decision to
democratic that I can support, I do so.
NttPF
ehird
Quazie wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:05 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goethe wrote:
The contract mentioned in the CFJ, at the time it was filed, had the
following text:
{{{
There is a list of players called
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree to this contract. If there are any such ordinary decisions
that I can attempt to change to democratic, I do so with 2 support. If
there are any current attempts to change an ordinary decision to
democratic that I can
2008/6/27 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In that case, ehrid still has two partners, so the attempts to
deregister it were unsuccessful. Updating records accordingly.
But the Manroster contains a non-player (me). The contract states
it is a list of players.
???
ehird
ehird wrote:
2008/6/27 Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Was Manroster a public contract? I've lost track of that. If so,
the official membership list doesn't change until the change is
published (R2178). -Goethe
The Manroster is just a list in the ehrid/mna contract.
More specifically:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Thursday 26 June 2008 8:30:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
Oh hey, comex! Want to do a back-and-forth for trade for free to get us
both above the limit for an instant? We could do that
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:59 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm about to post a simple contract that will let anyone buy my votes
on anything without me actually having to remember to create Sell
Tickets. I would do this already, but I'm not sure...
What should the price be, to
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Thursday 26 June 2008 8:30:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
Oh hey, comex! Want to do a back-and-forth for trade for free to get us
both above the
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I might be wrong, but don't reports traditionally go in OFF?
It is equally effective to send a report to agora-business as to
agora-official, and it's not
2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I perform the following action on behalf of ehird:
{{{I file a CFJ on the statement This CFJ was filed by ehird.}}}
Why?
Testing 'I' in on-behalf actions, says e.
ehird
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I join the PRS.
2008/6/27 Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I intend to make the Points Relay Service a contract with myself as
contestmaster without three objections.
I object.
I intend to make the Points Relay Service a
2008/6/27 Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I perform the following action on behalf of ehird:
{{{I file a CFJ on the statement This CFJ was filed by ehird.}}}
--
ais523
You've gotten into the same I problem as ehird got
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
I perform the following action on behalf of ehird:
{{{I file a CFJ on the statement This CFJ was filed by ehird.}}}
--
ais523
Gratuitous: If CFJ 1895 is followed, filing something on behalf
of ehird is not the same as ehird filing something.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
I perform the following action on behalf of ehird:
{{{I file a CFJ on the statement This CFJ was filed by ehird.}}}
--
ais523
Gratuitous: If CFJ 1895 is followed, filing
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I join the PRS.
2008/6/27 Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I intend to make the Points Relay Service a contract with myself as
contestmaster without three objections.
I object.
I intend to make the Points Relay Service a
2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's already a contest.
Ironic.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I join the PRS.
2008/6/27 Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I intend to make the Points Relay Service a contract with myself as
contestmaster without
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's already a contest.
Ironic.
Proto-proposal: rename contests to something that doesn't share
most of the same letters with contracts
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's already a contest.
Ironic.
Proto-proposal: rename contests to something that doesn't share
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's already a contest.
Ironic.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
Where in the rules are Gratuitous arguments described... it seems like
it is custom and not rule.
It is wholly custom. In fact, while R2205 says that arguments SHOULD
be presented, there's nothing to say that the CotC has to publish or
report *any* of it (I
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
Where in the rules are Gratuitous arguments described... it seems like
it is custom and not rule.
It is wholly custom. In fact, while R2205 says that arguments SHOULD
be presented,
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Thursday 26 June 2008 8:30:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
Oh hey, comex!
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
Actually, there has been more Vote Market activity in the past month
then in the six months previously. There have certainly been
opportunities to gain VP, and there presently exist at least 10 open
tickets. Just not much of it has been for the buying
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
Actually, there has been more Vote Market activity in the past month
then in the six months previously. There have certainly been
opportunities to gain VP, and there presently exist
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
Actually, there has been more Vote Market activity in the past month
then in the six months previously. There have certainly been
opportunities to gain VP, and there presently exist at least 10 open
tickets. Just not much of it has been for the buying
Goethe wrote:
By the way, does OBLIGATED in all caps have any meaning other than
the standard definition of the word (not in all-caps)? I can't find it.
(This isn't a prelude to trying to weasel out of anything, I'm just
curious if I'm missing something somewhere).
I thought it was in MMI,
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
If you ask me Vote Market is finally starting to act as it was envisioned.
Fair enough. I'm happy enough to be required to keep offering things
for sale when I'm below 50, but if no one accepts even at the cheapest
price after good faith effort, that
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
Goethe wrote:
By the way, does OBLIGATED in all caps have any meaning other than
the standard definition of the word (not in all-caps)? I can't find it.
(This isn't a prelude to trying to weasel out of anything, I'm just
curious if I'm missing
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
If you ask me Vote Market is finally starting to act as it was envisioned.
Fair enough. I'm happy enough to be required to keep offering things
for sale when I'm below 50, but if no
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
Goethe wrote:
By the way, does OBLIGATED in all caps have any meaning other than
the standard definition of the word (not in all-caps)? I can't find it.
(This isn't a prelude
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
If you ask me Vote Market is finally starting to act as it was envisioned.
Fair enough. I'm happy enough to be required to keep offering
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I post the following Sell Ticket:
Cost: 1VP
Action: Vote in the manner specified by the filler on any 3 specified
proposals.
Sheesh, the bottom really is dropping out of the market. Shows how
difficult a hard limit rule may be to keep. -Goethe
BobTHJ wrote:
Buy Ticket
Cost: A number of VP equal to 1/3 (rounded down) of the filler's
current Voting Limit on Ordinary proposals.
Action: Vote in the manner specified by me on a future proposal of my
choice. This ticket may be filled multiple times (a maximum of once
per each player) and
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
Buy Ticket
Cost: A number of VP equal to 1/3 (rounded down) of the filler's
current Voting Limit on Ordinary proposals.
Action: Vote in the manner specified by me on a future proposal of my
choice. This
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
Well, in that case: there are at least 28 players (I'm not counting
ehrid or the Left Hand in that count because their registration stati
are in doubt), and that ticket has been filled once, so it can be filled
a further 27 times. I therefore fill
BobTHJ wrote:
I suppose if this is judged TRUE you owe me votes on 27 future proposals.
Yes, but I'm willing to consider deals in which I would refund much of the
scammed VP in exchange for being released from most of the obligations
(that or BobTHJ pledging not to exercise them, which comes to
Goethe:
I read the ticket 4 times and each time came up with the wording
BobTHJ intended, not the one you inferred. Even if yours seemed
a little more natural to you, the good faith and common sense that
are the cornerstone of equity should have suggested BobTHJ meant
the other way.
2008/6/27 Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
With the majority consent of the Dons I de-protect this CFJ.
I judge FALSE.
BobTHJ
Your judicial corruption is going well, I see.
ehird
2008/6/27 Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I create and agree to the following pledge titled Agoran Slavery:
No.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
Goethe:
I read the ticket 4 times and each time came up with the wording
BobTHJ intended, not the one you inferred. Even if yours seemed
a little more natural to you, the good faith and common sense that
are the cornerstone of equity should have
Goethe wrote:
Yes. The fact that you felt the need, in the initial attempt, to give a
long-winded explanation of your phrase-interpretation, should be prima
facie evidence for a judge that you knew that your interpretation wasn't
what BobTHJ intended, and you knew that it might not be what
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goethe wrote:
Yes. The fact that you felt the need, in the initial attempt, to give a
long-winded explanation of your phrase-interpretation, should be prima
facie evidence for a judge that you knew that your
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do we really
have to treat every contract action as if we were trying to make a wish
with a twisted genie? It's really rather tiresome.
Well as far as I can tell, that's the
BobTHJ wrote:
Care to specify what you think is going wrong and propose a fix?
I can't think of a fix right now, although I do have some ideas.
First, as we're seeing at the moment, is the unbalancing issues
that a large VP trade can cause. (I'm thinking of comex losing all
eir VP, and spending
I knew about Agora for a long time, not sure where I first heard about
Nomic. Somewhat recently, I was invited into IRCnomic, and recent
discussions in the channel that used to host ircnomic got me
interested in Agora again..
Proposal titled Defend Democracy! AI=1.5 II=?
No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
not vote on any democratic decision.
On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Benjamin Schultz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
I create and agree to the following pledge titled Agoran Slavery:
{
1. This is a pledge titled Agoran Slavery. Every
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal titled Defend Democracy! AI=1.5 II=?
No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
not vote on any democratic decision.
Erm, replace person with first-class player
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal titled Defend Democracy! AI=1.5 II=?
No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
not vote on any democratic decision.
I fear that this is going to be buggy no matter what you do. Imagine a
Walrus
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal titled Defend Democracy! AI=1.5 II=?
No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
not vote on any democratic decision.
I
2008/6/27 Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Proposal titled Defend Democracy! AI=1.5 II=?
No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
not vote on any democratic decision.
This is against the Spirit of the Game, I think.
So long ago (May 5 2005) a proposal passed, specifically proposal 4736.
This proposal's text can be found here
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2005-April/004245.html
the fact that it passed can be found here
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So long ago (May 5 2005) a proposal passed, specifically proposal 4736.
This proposal's text can be found here
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2005-April/004245.html
the fact that it passed can
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
I don't know if I'm missing something, but R1992 seems to be out of
sync accorind to this.
The Rulekeepor Memo for the proposal said it worked, but it looks like
it was never added.
While it may have been left out (v. sad!), Proposal 4865, adopted 28-Aug-06,
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following on behalf of BobTHJ with respect to eir obligations
on CFJ 2020, as authorized by the Vote Market Contract. -Goethe
In many worlds, perhaps in an ideal one, I would have handled the matter of
CFJ
Protoproposal Unbribed Actions AI=3 II=3
Bribable is a switch on game actions performable by first-class
players. Options are bribable (default) and unbribable. If a
first-class player breaks a rule by performing an unbribable action,
or not performing an unbribable action, and a different
Protoproposal Unbribed Actions AI=3 II=3
Bribable is a switch on game actions performable by first-class
players. Options are bribable (default) and unbribable. If a
first-class player breaks a rule by performing an unbribable action,
or not performing an unbribable action, and a different
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Protoproposal Unbribed Actions AI=3 II=3
Bribability is a switch on game actions performable by first-class
players. Options are bribable (default) and unbribable. Changes to
bribability are secured. If a
first-class player
erm, rules to the contrary notwithstanding
Direct consequences of taking an unbribable action or not performing
that action are secured by this rule to be those defined by the rule
that defines the unbribable action in question.
84 matches
Mail list logo
