Quazie wrote:
With 2 support I intend to repeal this judgement.
ITYM appeal.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With 2 support I intend to repeal this judgement. This judgement
ignores the judgement of CFJ 2014, in which the word 'I' when used in
a way such as 'I' was used in the filling of this CFJ leads to an
ambiguous situation.
'I'
Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows:
---
Add the following after point f. within the 6th section of the AAA contract:
g. A farmer CAN harvest any 4 consecutive numbers and specify
another farmer. As soon as possible after doing so the SoA shall
select a random,
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With 2 support I intend to repeal this judgement. This judgement
ignores the judgement of CFJ 2014, in which the word 'I' when used in
a way such as 'I' was
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Sgeo wrote:
AI=1.7 II=1
Impeachment
{
In rule 1504, between the paragraphs describing the sentences of FINE
and CHOKEY, add the following paragraph
{{
* IMPEACH from an elected office with a duration (the tariff) up to 60
days multiplied by the power of the
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Olipro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under the terms of the aforementioned rule, I hereby announce that I wish to
register myself
Welcome to Agora!
and hereby exist as a Registered entity
Welcome to Agora!
by declaring that
I register
Welcome to Agora!
and
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows:
I proto-object. It's too powerful.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
Hi,
So, here's some ideas I've been bouncing around in my head;
1) a Rule declaring the RBoA to be a legal entity and as such, becomes
responsible for the value of the Chit, whilst at the same time, the Chit
will formally become legal tender for settlement of all debts public and
private.
2)
E is currently trying to convince Olipro to support it on IRC. If e
does, e can spend some VP and win.
Eek! A call to action!
tusho
2008/7/7 Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
E is currently trying to convince Olipro to support it on IRC. If e
does, e can spend some VP and win.
Eek! A call to action!
tusho
Suggestion to all filled VPers if they don't want this to happen:
Wait until objections come in before doing the
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 19:03 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/7 Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
E is currently trying to convince Olipro to support it on IRC. If e
does, e can spend some VP and win.
Eek! A call to action!
tusho
Suggestion to all filled VPers if they don't want
2008/7/7 ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And breach the spirit of the Vote Market?
--
ais523
You bet.
2008/7/7 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I submit the following proposal titled Refactor Extortion (AI=2):
==
Repeal Rule 2172 (Acting on Behalf of Agora).
Amend Rule 2189 (Win by Extortion) to read:
A player MAY award
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal titled Refactor Extortion (AI=2):
==
Repeal Rule 2172 (Acting on Behalf of Agora).
Amend Rule 2189 (Win by Extortion) to
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/7 Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
E is currently trying to convince Olipro to support it on IRC. If e
does, e can spend some VP and win.
Eek! A call to action!
tusho
Suggestion to all filled VPers if they don't
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not repeal extortion?
Why repeal it? It's a legit way to win. I just think that it should
be AI-2, and the acting on behalf of Agora bit is completely
unnecessary.
-root
Wooble, to fulfill your obligation to me via the Vote Market
agreement, please retract your previous votes and vote FOR x 6 on
proposal #5591.
BobTHJ
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Buy Ticket
Cost: 10VP
Action: Object to Sgeo's attempt to Win by Extortion and do not
retract this objection or support it. This ticket can be filled
multiple times.
tusho
I act on behalf of tusho to retract this
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Buy Ticket
Cost: 10VP
Action: Object to Sgeo's attempt to Win by Extortion and do not
retract this objection or support it. This ticket can be filled
multiple
I act on behalf of tusho to cause tusho to take this pledge:
{
I, tusho, pledge not to post any tickets to try to get people to
oppose Sgeo's intent to act on behalf of Agora, nor take any other
action that might have the effect of causing Sgeo's attempt to win by
extortion to fail.}
I act on
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Buy Ticket
Cost: 10VP
Action: Object to Sgeo's attempt to Win by Extortion and do not
retract this objection or support it. This ticket can be filled
multiple times.
Meh. Ultimately I don't care too strongly whether the
2008/7/7 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Meh. Ultimately I don't care too strongly whether the attempt is
successful or not. It's just a win, and I don't currently hold MwP,
so I really have nothing to lose by it.
Since when can non-players object to dependent actions, anyway?
-root
Was
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Buy Ticket
Cost: 10VP
Action: Object to Sgeo's attempt to Win by Extortion and do not
retract this objection or support it. This ticket can be filled
2008/7/7 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Oops, I missed that it was a Buy Ticket. In that case: since when do
you have VP, anyway?
-root
I posted it as a mistake.
Previously ais523 had agreed that e would reserve the VP e stole from
me for use as I wished, and I was going to use that.
Now
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following players have met the Win condition of Win by Extortion:
Sgeo
ais523
ihope
Olipro
cctoide
root
Me too!
You also paid Goethe 7VP to support but declared your win before e had
the chance to do so.
BobTHJ
I'd still like to get the consent of the Vote Market parties for the
below change.
BobTHJ
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Without three objections I intend to make the following change to
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I request subsidization.
Fails, you have 8 lands.
BobTHJ
tusho, you're not a player, which rule 1728 requires.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the following votes, UNCONSIDERED is a subtype of AGAINST meaning
that there are too many proposals at once, and I don't have the time
to fully consider the proposal's implications. BUGGY is a subtype of
AGAINST meaning
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to act on behalf of Agora to award a
win to every person.
Well, only players can act on behalf of Agora with Agoran Consent, so
this probably won't do much good. But I offer moral support.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Corrected win announcement:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following players have met the Win condition of Win by Extortion:
2008/7/7 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, only players can act on behalf of Agora with Agoran Consent, so
this probably won't do much good. But I offer moral support.
Maybe someone else can try it again tomorrow (Acting on behalf of Agora
is being repealed, but you can still extort, so
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:57 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With Agoran Consent, I act on behalf of Agora to award myself and all
supporters a Win.
If possible, I object to all of Sgeo's current attempts to act on behalf
of Agora. (Apparently it's possible to support and oppose the same
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to act on behalf of Agora to award a
win to every person.
You're not a player, and the time frame for performing this action
will expire before you can become one.
-root
ais523 wrote:
However, given the PNP's stated method of acting, it might be quite
difficult to return the chits; it would require amending the contract
with support from all its members,
... which can be manifested by a contract between all the members,
such as an equation regarding the PNP.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/7 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You have to object to an action *before* it's performed if you want it
to have any effect.
-root
And did it?
And did it what?
-root
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With 2 support I intend to appeal Taral's verdict in CFJ 2048.
The judge has not referred to the alleged precedent that would make
a failing speech act merely ineffective rather than untruthful, and I
think e is mistaken in saying
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/7 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You have to object to an action *before* it's performed if you want it
to have any effect.
-root
And did it?
comex wrote:
Preparing for ostracism and One-off ostracism were protos sent to
the discussion forum. Proposals 5629-5630 are not by me, but were
created by Zefram's act of distribution.
Oops. Noted in historical record.
-zefram
2008/7/7 Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As much as it pains me to be loyal to Agora
Fixed that for you.
Taral wrote:
required to show that the accused did not believe eir statement to be
true.
I thought that side of the case was uncontroversial.
-zefram
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/7 Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As much as it pains me to be loyal to Agora
Fixed that for you.
I SWHACK tusho for silliness (Canadian [nomic] in-joke)
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Olipro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
So, here's some ideas I've been bouncing around in my head;
1) a Rule declaring the RBoA to be a legal entity and as such, becomes
responsible for the value of the Chit, whilst at the same time, the Chit
will formally
I rather prefer the current decentralization of the economy, which
lets us experiment with multiple models at once. If players want to
use Chits as legal tender, they can. Players who have no interest in
the economy can just ignore it. I don't see a reason that any of this
needs to be in
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought that side of the case was uncontroversial.
I think a determination as to the existence of truth values for
actions is more appropriately achieved by an inquiry case, not an
appeal of a criminal case.
--
Taral [EMAIL
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I rather prefer the current decentralization of the economy, which
lets us experiment with multiple models at once. If players want to
use Chits as legal tender, they can. Players who have no interest in
the economy can just
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* FINE in a specified currency whose backing document specifies
a FINE amount, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy the
amount of the specified
Fixing an objection raised by ais523
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can the judge really be trusted to specify an arbitrary amount?
Sure, have the appropriateness scale with the amount. Then an
inappropriate amount can be appealed.
-root
Fixing BobTHJ's objections
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing,
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would exclude any assets from destruction which are part of a
zero-sum system (none at the moment as far as I am aware, but just in
case).
Yes, I agree that it should only be able to apply to contracts that
allow it, or
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* FINE in a specified currency whose backing document specifies
a FINE amount and for which the ninny is bound by the currency's
backing document, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would exclude any assets from destruction which are part of a
zero-sum system (none at the moment as far as I am aware, but just in
case).
Yes, I agree
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* FINE in a specified currency whose backing document specifies
a FINE amount and for which the ninny is bound by the currency's
backing document, appropriate
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the backing document is a rule, than the ninny will always be bound
by it, I'd assume..
Unless the ninny is ehirder, I mean deregistered.
BobTHJ
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Transferring the FINED assets to the Lost Found Dept is reasonable
and would permit any contract to be fined.
You can't transfer a fixed asset, but you can destroy it.
Fixing Spear's objections
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing,
Add some judicial discretion
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing,
Oops
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of
Grah
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of
On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Olipro wrote:
Under the terms of the aforementioned rule, I hereby announce that
I wish to register myself and hereby exist as a Registered entity
by declaring that I register and henceforth wish to be known under
the name of 'Olipro'.
Therefore, under Rule
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grah
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
2008/7/7 Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Welcome Olipro! How'd you find out about this game?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
Sgeo, I think.
tusho
On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Quazie wrote:
Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows:
---
Add the following after point f. within the 6th section of the AAA
contract:
g. A farmer CAN harvest any 4 consecutive numbers and specify
another farmer. As soon as
Someone posted a link to it some time in a channel I'm in, actually, I think
Sgeo found it at that time to by the same means.
Olipro
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/7 Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Welcome Olipro! How'd you find out about
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Quazie wrote:
Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows:
---
Add the following after point f. within the 6th section of the AAA
contract:
g. A farmer CAN
2008/7/7 Olipro [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Someone posted a link to it some time in a channel I'm in, actually, I think
Sgeo found it at that time to by the same means.
Olipro
Sgeo is from IRCNomic/Canada.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Taral wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to act on behalf of Agora to award a
win to every person.
I support.
Rule 2189/0 (Power=2)
Win by Extortion
Upon a player...
^^
2008/7/8 Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Rule 2189/0 (Power=2)
Win by Extortion
Upon a player...
^^
As observant as the 3 people before you, I see.
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/8 Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
words
AWESOME.
I support all of Sgeo's attempts to award wins on behalf of Agora.
I just won :3
Pending CFJ :)
2008/7/8 Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pending CFJ :)
Oi, Protection Racket!
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, hey. Anyone else want to support after the fact? Because I CFJ on the
following statement:
Goethe won by extortion on or about June 7, 2008.
I think you mean July 7.
Arguments:
The way Support and Object
Ivan Hope wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:14 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I spend Db F Ab to increase Ivan Hope's VVLOD by 1.
Thank you. What for?
Because you were still languishing at 4.
root wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not repeal extortion?
Why repeal it? It's a legit way to win. I just think that it should
be AI-2, and the acting on behalf of Agora bit is completely
unnecessary.
It's relevant if Agora ever becomes
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just don't have time to grok the economy in fullness
i was working on a thesis on the topic but I gave up when the Bank of
Agora collapsed.
Sgeo wrote:
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, even if
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ais523 wrote:
However, given the PNP's stated method of acting, it might be quite
difficult to return the chits; it would require amending the contract
with support from all its members,
... which can be manifested by a contract
78 matches
Mail list logo
