Goethe wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Ivan Hope wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I call for judgement on the following:
ihope changed eir Registrar-recorded nickname to avpx on or
about Jul 19th.
>>> Isn't that u
Goethe wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> These are linked assignments.
>
> I hate you.
Whaat? You said you were tired of equity cases. And they should both
be TRUE by the precedent of CFJ 2080.
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> These are linked assignments.
I hate you.
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Ivan Hope wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I call for judgement on the following:
>>> ihope changed eir Registrar-recorded nickname to avpx on or
>>> about Jul 19th.
>>
>> Isn't that undetermined until t
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 21 July 2008 12:11:32 pm comex wrote:
>> (Still looking for an editor that will allow me to edit text wrapped
>> in the Agoran style without having to unwrap it first.)
>
> Try nano + Ctrl-J.
I've never known Ctrl-
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:53 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I OBJECT to my previous attempt to add a section to the Vote Market
> contract. (The proposed typo fix stands.)
>
> Without 3 objections I intend to amend the Vote Market contract by
> adding the following sections:
> {{
> 13. Pok
On Monday 21 July 2008 12:11:32 pm comex wrote:
> (Still looking for an editor that will allow me to edit text wrapped
> in the Agoran style without having to unwrap it first.)
Try nano + Ctrl-J.
tusho wrote:
> The following action will fail: I initiate a criminal CFJ against tusho for
> violating rule 2149 by stating that the initiation of this criminal CFJ will
> fail.
I'm treating this as not clearly expressing intent to initiate a CFJ.
Ivan Hope wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I call for judgement on the following:
>> ihope changed eir Registrar-recorded nickname to avpx on or
>> about Jul 19th.
>
> Isn't that undetermined until the Registrar publishes eir report, at
> which
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I call for judgement on the following:
> ihope changed eir Registrar-recorded nickname to avpx on or
> about Jul 19th.
Isn't that undetermined until the Registrar publishes eir report, at
which time it becomes obvious? I s
This is an annotated list of filled Vote Market tickets. In each
case, the S: player performed the described action and the B: player
paid em VP to do so; the order indicates whether the ticket was a
Sell Ticket ("will sell my action for VP") or a Buy Ticket ("will
buy your action for VP").
1/07
Please substitute propose for prose
21 july 2008 Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What was the result? How can equity case judgements not violate R101?
>
> Because people implicitly agree to them when they join a contract. Or
> when they join the game, depending on
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Players playing attention can destroy eir pokes by announcement,
> right? Note that a conspiracy of five players can forcibly dislodge
> one VP per week (four of them can make a contract allowing the fifth
> to act on their be
avpx wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> avpx wrote:
>>
>>> Since I can no longer bring myself to care about the hundreds of random
>>> messages sent to the various forums (no offense), I set my posture to supine
>> Fails, you're standing.
> Rule 1871
comex wrote:
> Without three objections, I intend to amend the Vote Market contract
> by adding the following section:
> {
> 13. Pokes are a fixed currency. Once per week, a first-class party
> CAN poke a person by announcement, causing em to gain a poke. If a
> person ever has at least five pok
ais523 wrote:
> I submit the following proposal (AI=1, II=1, Title="A one-off CotC exit
> clause"):
> {{{
> Assign a random player, other than Goethe, who is either sitting or
> standing to CFJ 2039.
> [Currently all the players in the game are barred from judging CFJ 2039;
> the exception for Goe
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> I submit the following proposal (AI=1, II=1, Title="A one-off CotC exit
> clause"):
> {{{
> Assign a random player, other than Goethe, who is either sitting or
> standing to CFJ 2039.
> [Currently all the players in the game are barred from judging CFJ 2039;
>
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 5:40 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I lie.
>>
>
> I initiate a criminal case against myself, alleging that I violated
> Rule 2149 by claiming that I lie when I did not, in fact lie.
See CFJ 1887.
-r
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> avpx wrote:
>
>> Since I can no longer bring myself to care about the hundreds of random
>> messages sent to the various forums (no offense), I set my posture to supine
>
> Fails, you're standing.
Rule 1871 says, "A player CAN
2008/7/21 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (Still looking for an editor that will allow me to edit text wrapped
> in the Agoran style without having to unwrap it first.)
You can write a program running on the Emacs OS to do that, but
I imagine you're attached to your current OS.
tusho
(editor war any
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Taral wrote:
>> Because people implicitly agree to them when they join a contract. Or
>> when they join the game, depending on your reading.
>
> I agree with you wholly, I just don't think it's in the ca
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Judges should not hesitate to (and IMO should far more often should) slap
> the callers with CFJ 1771 or (especially) a similar UNDETERMINED null equity
> judgement to get rid of a case where evidence is not reasonably provi
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> IMHO part of the problem is that of late there has been a glut of
> cases that require a lot of work on the part of the judge and have
> little value in determining precedent.
One of the worst part of this trend is the sheer sloppiness of (some)
callers t
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Another option: Buy your way out of the boring ones: I'll write
> reasonable judgments for a VP or two. -Goethe
>
There's an idea.
BobTHJ
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Actually, I really do enjoy judging certain cases, though there are
>> many that do not interest me. This is why I have suggested several
>> times that j
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Taral wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Actually, I really do enjoy judging certain cases, though there are
>> many that do not interest me. This is why I have suggested several
>> times that judges should have more flexibili
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Taral wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What was the result? How can equity case judgements not violate R101?
>
> Because people implicitly agree to them when they join a contract. Or
> when they join the game, depending on your readi
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I really do enjoy judging certain cases, though there are
> many that do not interest me. This is why I have suggested several
> times that judges should have more flexibility over the cases they are
> assigned, b
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What was the result? How can equity case judgements not violate R101?
Because people implicitly agree to them when they join a contract. Or
when they join the game, depending on your reading.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please
Not to the PF.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:43 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With support from all members of the appeal panel for CFJ 2053a, I post
> the following message on behalf of that panel:
> {{This panel REMANDS the case; the judge is recommended to look at which
> of UNIMPUGNED, A
With support from all members of the appeal panel for CFJ 2053a, I post
the following message on behalf of that panel:
{{This panel REMANDS the case; the judge is recommended to look at which
of UNIMPUGNED, ALREADY TRIED and INNOCENT is the most appropriate.}}
--
ais523
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> VPOD was supposed to be reset by "wins", now winning defined so that only
> one sort of (extremely unlikely) win resets it. The fact that it's hardly
> (ever?) been reset means to me, that it's generally boringly entrenche
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I initiate a CFJ on the following statement:
>> "Equity case judgements violate R101(iv)."
>
> Been there, done that.
>
> --
> Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Please
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I initiate a CFJ on the following statement:
> "Equity case judgements violate R101(iv)."
Been there, done that.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 4:40 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I initiate a criminal case against myself, alleging that I violated
> Rule 2149 by claiming that I lie when I did not, in fact lie.
Criminal cases should probably include a materiality provision.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Ple
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2053a
>>>
>>> Appeal 2053a ==
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:06 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting. I'd support something along those lines, maybe not exactly
> that. (I also note that at present there's basically no incentive for
> using notes for VVLOD /reduction/, although it's possible; maybe that
> should be m
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> VPOD was supposed to be reset by "wins", now winning defined so that only
> one sort of (extremely unlikely) win resets it. The fact that it's hardly
> (ever?) been reset means to me, that it's generally boringly entrench
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 13:34 -0400, Sgeo wrote:
> I agree to the following contract:
>
> {
> This is a public contract called "Vote Market Insurance". Parties to
> this contract are known as Insurees.
>
> Any entity that either possesses VP or is bound by the Vote Market may
> join this contract b
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> VPOD was supposed to be reset by "wins", now winning defined so that only
> one sort of (extremely unlikely) win resets it. The fact that it's hardly
> (ever?) been reset means to me, that it's generally boringly entrench
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 09:01 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> VPOD was supposed to be reset by "wins", now winning defined so that only
> one sort of (extremely unlikely) win resets it. The fact that it's hardly
> (ever?) been reset means to me, that it's generally boringly entrenched
> beyond what s
VPOD was supposed to be reset by "wins", now winning defined so that only
one sort of (extremely unlikely) win resets it. The fact that it's hardly
(ever?) been reset means to me, that it's generally boringly entrenched
beyond what should be supported - from past, I'm thinking a turnover of
~6
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:11 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 17:35 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> == CFJ 2090 ==
>>
>> CFJ 2019 is a valid CFJ.
>>
>> =
On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 20:07 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I submit the following proposal in reference to
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/suspects.php:
>
> Department of Corrections
> AI: 1
> II: 1
> {
> Upon the adoption of this proposal comex is awarded the patent title
> "Habitual Offender"
>
On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 12:53 +, Zefram wrote:
> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
I vote as follows:
> 5649 O1 1.7 Quazie Partnerships devolve, and so should unqu...
AGAINSTx3, PRESENTx3
> 5650 O1 1.7 Pavitra No frivolous prosecution
FORx2, PRESENTx4
--
ais523
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:03 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 15:27 -0400, comex wrote:
>> CFJ 1971 implies such actions are possible only if taking the action
>> does not depend upon the truth value of the statement, a situation
>> which may well not be the case for a
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:58 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/21 Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Your argument that the PNP is its own executor wouldn't work even if
>> you removed "first-class" from the definition. The PNP that Agora
>> recognizes is a contract. A documen
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 19:36 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Much of what you've written can be treated as the rights of natural
> > persons behind the partnership being preserved, without directly
> > claiming rights for partnerships
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 15:27 -0400, comex wrote:
> CFJ 1971 implies such actions are possible only if taking the action
> does not depend upon the truth value of the statement, a situation
> which may well not be the case for any game action. If you argue that
> it is the case for initiating CFJs,
2008/7/21 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This is why POST is supposed to be used.
>
It's not a bad thing. The votes should get sent out ASAP.
We'd do it via cron if we could. It's useful to have googlebot submit them.
Note that GET requests don't have to be non-effective, just that
multiple GETs sh
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/21 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Is Googlebot a first-class person? It's attempted to update Agora on
>> the PNP's membership and text of the contract at least once
>> (http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:b
2008/7/21 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is Googlebot a first-class person? It's attempted to update Agora on
> the PNP's membership and text of the contract at least once
> (http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:bvcyYEB-92wJ:nomic.info/perlnomic/update_agora.cgi+site:nomic.info+agora&hl=en&
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I lie.
>>
>
> I initiate a criminal case against myself, alleging that I violated
> Rule 2149 by claiming that I lie when I did not, in fact lie.
>
Sounds INNOCENT
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For all the current ways the PNP sends message there
> is usually a clear (if tricky to identify) first-class person who
> triggers the script that sends the message (activating a proposal or
> running one of the CGI progr
2008/7/21 Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Your argument that the PNP is its own executor wouldn't work even if
> you removed "first-class" from the definition. The PNP that Agora
> recognizes is a contract. A document. It can't do anything. The
> abstract entity that is doing those actions is
56 matches
Mail list logo
