On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about some recordkeepors?
It wouldn't be so horrible to actually make the Accountor do something
for a change.
7/07 8 ?S: root B: Sgeo
This was 4VP for root to stop objection to extortion, and another 4VP
for em to support it.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex wrote:
Without three objections, I intend to amend the Vote Market contract
by adding the following section:
I object.
I am not going to resolve this attempt. You are, however, free to
object to my most recent
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I like the idea, I object because I already have enough
currencies and transactions to track. Change the recordkeeper and make
any VP transfers pragmatic and I'll support this.
Well, we can't have the VP transfers
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:24 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I like the idea, I object because I already have enough
currencies and transactions to track. Change the recordkeeper and make
any VP transfers pragmatic
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:15, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object to every dependent action I can object to. I support every
dependent action I can support.
So you don't want to leave the Protection Racket?
-woggle
2008/7/22 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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.
I'm
Protoproposal, AI=1.7:
Amend Rule 1504 by inserting the following immediately before
the final paragraph:
Notwithstanding the above, a sentence of EXILE is always appropriate
if the CFJ in question was initiated by the defendant, and the judge
SHOULD assign such a
2008/7/22 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Protoproposal, AI=1.7:
Amend Rule 1504 by inserting the following immediately before
the final paragraph:
Notwithstanding the above, a sentence of EXILE is always appropriate
if the CFJ in question was initiated by the defendant,
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:12 AM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arguments: UNDECIDABLE is never appropriate.
That's an assertion, not an argument.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
2008/7/22 Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:12 AM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arguments: UNDECIDABLE is never appropriate.
That's an assertion, not an argument.
Yeah um what about This statement is false.?
Some things are just undecidable.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:15 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object to every dependent action I can object to. I support every
dependent action I can support.
I'm treating this as ineffective by the precedent of CFJ 1307.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 6:40 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 6:48 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
False - ehird refers to the player known as tusho. As a result, any
player that attempted to change eir name to ehird after ehird chaned
eir name to tusho did
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ais523 wrote:
Without objection, I intend to terminate the pledge which allows
anything to act on behalf of tusho.
I object.
-zefram
You sir, are a meanie.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:11 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I judge CFJ 2090 as follows:
...
I intend to appeal this judgement with two support.
I support. The rules are clear about what creates a CFJ.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:29 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 17:35 -0700, Quazie wrote:
I post the following Sell Ticket:
1 VP, I will object or support a change to the
?? pledge. This ticket may be filled
mutiple times, though only
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
For the record, I am dubious about this interpretation of a statement
being made, and action being taken, at a particular instant. Making the
statement is a process which takes non-zero time, and the statement's
truth is evaluated (and any actions take
2008/7/22 Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I object.
-zefram
I intend, with two support, to cause Zefram to stop being a dick.
tusho
(wish I could stop using this.)
On Jul 22, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/22 Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I object.
-zefram
I intend, with two support, to cause Zefram to stop being a dick.
tusho
(wish I could stop using this.)
I object.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While you're at it, I don't suppose you could add options to search
and by full text
This. grep is quite useful with cfj.qoid.us, and since it's now down
because of billing issues, I have a nice taste of how much harder it
is
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object to this one as well. I really don't like the idea of this
going into the Vote Market contract, but why don't you create this as
a sub-contract?
A sub-contract won't be able to modify VP. While props could just
exist
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A plain reading of these rules shows that a player of Agora has, by
definition, explicitly consented to become party to the rules of Agora. A
non-player, therefore, is not a party to the rules.
The Rules are not a
With two support, I intend to sigh.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 20, 2008, at 8:42 PM, comex wrote:
I initiate a criminal case accusing OscarMeyr of violating Rule 2149
by claiming that tusho could not have violated any rules because e was
could the current Accountor please contact me concerning
specifications for automating their task?
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about some recordkeepors?
It wouldn't be
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By way of counter-suit, I CFJ on the following inquiry: A non-player can
violate a rule of Agora.
I think CFJ1709 covers this fairly well, although I'm a but skeptical
about the idea that we should put much stock in
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:19 PM, David Nicol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
could the current Accountor please contact me concerning
specifications for automating their task?
I think the Accountor is perfectly capable of creating the automation
necessary to publish no report and track nothing.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:19 PM, David Nicol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
could the current Accountor please contact me concerning
specifications for automating their task?
I think the Accountor is perfectly capable of
comex wrote:
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
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, ihope wrote:
Arguments: After reading Rule 591, Inquiry Cases (where does Rule
1503 come in?), I had forgotten about the logically undecidable part
of it, only remembering the not capable of being accurately described
as either false or true part.
Example (not actually
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Michael Norrish
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Emacs' M-q command will wrap paragraphs that appear in ASCII bulleted
and numbered lists. E.g., this sort of thing
* this is a long paragraph full of words that I am composing in real
time, and which breaks over at
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Michael Norrish
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Emacs' M-q command will wrap paragraphs that appear in ASCII bulleted
and numbered lists. E.g., this sort of thing
* this is a long paragraph full
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Example (not actually CFJing here):
I CFJ on the following: This CFJ exists.
This particular statement is false before it is called, true after it
is called, but in the instant it is called (the instant between it
being
Ian Kelly wrote:
Oh, and the fill doesn't automatically do what you might want with
lettered lists, e.g. Michael's second example above but with a)
instead of 1). To refill in that case, you can first set the fill
prefix by moving the cursor to the beginning of the text on any line
with the
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:20 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object to this one as well. I really don't like the idea of this
going into the Vote Market contract, but why don't you create this as
a sub-contract?
A
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:33 PM, David Nicol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phooey. I so want to define rounds of applause as a currency, right
alongside a href=http://tipjar.com/2008i/tipjarium.html; tipjarium
/a which is in pre-alpha state but if you think ReCaptcha is fun,
it's a game today.
root wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:11 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 Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rule 106, excerpt
A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear
indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which
places the proposal in the Proposal Pool.
Rule 1607, excerpt
The
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, ihope wrote:
Arguments: After reading Rule 591, Inquiry Cases (where does Rule
1503 come in?), I had forgotten about the logically undecidable part
of it, only remembering the not capable of being
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 19:30, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: Let officers disambiguate
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 2208 (Clarity of Announcements) to read:
An ambiguous attempt to perform an action
comex wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:15 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object to every dependent action I can object to. I support every
dependent action I can support.
I'm treating this as ineffective by the precedent of CFJ 1307.
Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) does not include
OscarMeyr wrote:
On Jul 22, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
A non-player, therefore, is not a party to the rules.
The rules are not presently adjudicated as a contract.
Dang, did that get changed???
The rule claiming it got repealed a while back. I've
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:22, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/22 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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
root wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rule 106, excerpt
A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear
indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which
places the proposal in the Proposal Pool.
Rule 1607,
comex wrote:
Equity is becoming more and more powerful because some seemingly
crucial parts of the game are located in contracts. And indeed, it
has been proposed that we give equity jurisdiction over the Rules.
But equity is not in the Spirit of Agora, because it basically forbids
scams
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sgeo's FINE in the judge's choice of currency proposal would allow
such flexibility.
Not really. For one thing, a Vote Market-specific mechanism would be
much preferable since the VPs remain zero-sum. But generally,
criminal
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) does not include specify like
the rule relevant to CFJ 1307 did.
Rule 2208/0 (Power=3)
Clarity of Announcements
All attempts to perform an action by announcement fail if the
action
47 matches
Mail list logo
