On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> Rule 2148/2 reads, in part, "A foreign nomic may grant certain powers
>>> and privileges to Agora's ambassador." "Power" is defined by R1688
Will one of the Normishites please vote for and activate
update-index-html as soon as possible? Thanks.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Rule 2148/2 reads, in part, "A foreign nomic may grant certain powers
>> and privileges to Agora's ambassador." "Power" is defined by R1688/4
>> to be a non-negative rational number w
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Rule 2148/2 reads, in part, "A foreign nomic may grant certain powers
> and privileges to Agora's ambassador." "Power" is defined by R1688/4
> to be a non-negative rational number which, if positive, makes its
I'm not recording this as a win unless it's sh
ais523 wrote:
> I perform all the actions in the following block of text, if and only if
> they would all be successful, and every non-action statement in that
> block of text would be true at the time it was made:
> {{{
> I call for judgement on the statement "Goethe is wearing a hat."
> The prev
Is this the third time that I've sent a message to the wrong -business forum?
At least THIS one wasn't an attempt to start a war between B and Agora... ;)
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 7:16 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Charles Schaefer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think this highlights problems with the Protectorate rules. They
>> depend on the Protectorate nomic having things like "fora" and a way
>> to "proclaim" things to the nomic,
On Thursday 25 September 2008 03:04:51 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2008, at 20:55, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > I believe R2200 was created in direct response to the original
> > judgment in that case, almost specifically to allow us to
> > consider Canada a nomic.
>
> Point: IRCNomic was renam
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this highlights problems with the Protectorate rules. They
> depend on the Protectorate nomic having things like "fora" and a way
> to "proclaim" things to the nomic, which are properties defined by
> the other nomic
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't see any need for that. To my eyes, the machine itself is the
>> nomic. Whether it can become a protectorate in that state is largely
>> irrelevant. And I disagree with Wooble; a com
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see any need for that. To my eyes, the machine itself is the
> nomic. Whether it can become a protectorate in that state is largely
> irrelevant. And I disagree with Wooble; a completely pragmatic ruleset
> can still be
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Most of them have platonic rulesets that can be set up such that the
>> rules change immediately upon the protective decree being issued. I'd
>> argue that a nomic with a completely pragmatic ruleset dependent on an
>> offic
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How is this different than the fact that, for a "traditional" nomic, the
>> Ambassador would probably post a message in that Nomic's forum, which the
>> rulekeepor or other recor
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> On Thursday 25 September 2008 01:03:46 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 1. I do 1.
>> 2. I do 2.
>> 3. If 2 failed, I didn't do 1.
>>
>> It's very arguable if #3 actually, legally works. The
>> "simultaneous but sequential" is no longer in the rules but is also
On Thursday 25 September 2008 01:03:46 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 1. I do 1.
> 2. I do 2.
> 3. If 2 failed, I didn't do 1.
>
> It's very arguable if #3 actually, legally works. The
> "simultaneous but sequential" is no longer in the rules but is also
> kept by (recent) CFJ and a controversial seri
On 25 Sep 2008, at 21:34, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
No attempt has been made to change the holders of these offices since
the beginning of April, so I'm required to make nominations.
For Conductor, I nominate Murphy and root.
For Clerk of the Courts, I nominate Murphy and Goethe.
For IADoP, I no
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How is this different than the fact that, for a "traditional" nomic, the
> Ambassador would probably post a message in that Nomic's forum, which the
> rulekeepor or other recordkeepor of that nomic would be required to make?
Oops...for some reason I thought this was a low-priority office
(shouldn't it be?). I'll get a report published ASAP.
BobTHJ
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to deputise for the Scorekeepor to publish eir report.
>
> -root
>
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I hereby request Protectorate status for my computer (strictly speaking
>> for its software) which is named selim. I have full access to this computer;
>> so as long as I am an
On 25 Sep 2008, at 20:55, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Kerim Aydin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root's judgement generally (though not specifically) goes against
CFJ 1879 for computers in general.
I believe R2200 was created in direct response to the original
judgment
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby request Protectorate status for my computer (strictly speaking
> for its software) which is named selim. I have full access to this computer;
> so as long as I am an Agoran player, it's "gamestate" is arranged so th
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root's judgement generally (though not specifically) goes against
> CFJ 1879 for computers in general.
I believe R2200 was created in direct response to the original
judgment in that case, almost specifically to allow us to
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:26 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing that I've noticed (mostly due to advising the PNP on which way
> to vote) is that recently, we seem to be getting mostly Democratic
> proposals, thus making all our nice complicated Caste stuff pretty
> irrelevant. Is it
One thing that I've noticed (mostly due to advising the PNP on which way
to vote) is that recently, we seem to be getting mostly Democratic
proposals, thus making all our nice complicated Caste stuff pretty
irrelevant. Is it time to reduce the power of some rules, or increase
the democratisation th
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2008, at 18:54, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Judgement:
>>
>> If Normish is a nomic, then its operating system is its ruleset. The
>> standard set of tools in a Linux system, combined with root access,
>> are sufficient to make arbitrary changes to the
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If the following series of actions would otherwise fail as a whole,
>> then I take none of them.
>
> I dunno. Verification of these by the recordkeepors would require an
> unusual effor
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 10:47, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If the following series of actions would otherwise fail as a whole,
>> then I take none of them.
>
> I dunno. Verification of these by the recordkeepors wou
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the following series of actions would otherwise fail as a whole,
> then I take none of them.
I dunno. Verification of these by the recordkeepors would require an
unusual effort. What's the rule on conditionals like this?
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Personally, I don't think wearing a hat is part of the gamestate in
>> any way whatsoever; therefore it cannot be ratified, even for an
>> instant. Hence you could ratify whether someone got a French Flag,
>> but not whether they were actually wearing th
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think we're in agreement, actually, (comex, you and myself) just the
>> victim of my imperfectly trying to parse a not-quite-perfectly written
>> CFJ statement.
>
> Personally, I don't
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 September 2008 08:20:35 am Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I recommend a sentence of
>> EXILE with a tariff of 180 days.
>
> R1504 prescribes "the middle of the tariff range... for severe rule
> breaches amounting to a breach of trust." The middle
On 25 Sep 2008, at 15:15, comex wrote:
When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so
that the ratified document was completely true and accurate at
the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a
public document does not invalidate, reve
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we're in agreement, actually, (comex, you and myself) just the
> victim of my imperfectly trying to parse a not-quite-perfectly written
> CFJ statement.
Personally, I don't think wearing a hat is part of the gamesta
33 matches
Mail list logo
