On 1 Oct 2008, at 05:14, Ian Kelly wrote:
It categorizes adopted proposals as spam, rejected proposals as
non-spam, and votes against spam?
-root
Bingo!
On 1 Oct 2008, at 04:16, Ed Murphy wrote:
I need to check the exact details of Goethe's and BobTHJ's sell
tickets. I have the votes as 15F / 16A without those. Will take
care of it later tonight.
Haha. It is all for naught. ais523 was trying to continue eir
long-running streak of winning
On 1 Oct 2008, at 13:32, Bayes wrote:
Bayes votes as follows:
5732 FORx2
5733 AGAINSTx2
--
bayes 2008-10-01 13:10:18 +0100
IT WORKS!! The machine works!!
Although I'm kind of surprised it agreed with my titles...
Really, neither of them is a good proposal.
HOWEVER. That's irrelevant. It
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It categorizes adopted proposals as spam, rejected proposals as
non-spam, and votes against spam?
The other way around. It votes FOR stuff like adopted proposals.
On 1 Oct 2008, at 15:10, comex wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It categorizes adopted proposals as spam, rejected proposals as
non-spam, and votes against spam?
The other way around. It votes FOR stuff like adopted proposals.
Oh. Yeah.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ alleging that
BobTHJ violated Rule 2143 by failing to publish a Scorekeepor's Report
last week (eir last report was published on 11 Sept.)
I'm guilty here (though I
Taral wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal 5707 has been adopted, awarding a win to ais523.
You owe me 8 VP. :P
Yep, I'll transfer it to you later today or tomorrow once it's
generally established that the adoption worked.
Unfortunately, I'm having quite
On 1 Oct 2008, at 15:50, Alexander Smith wrote:
Also, I did send the deputisation for the monster for the Assessor
to the lists; but I had to do it from a different account and it
seemed not to get through. I have proof of having sent the message,
and I'll post it to a-b along with all the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Geoffrey Spear
Sent: Wed 01/10/2008 13:30
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to make the decision
That isn't a miswording, I sent the message but I had to send it from a
different address, and it seems not to have arrived. H. Distributor Taral, can
you check a-o to see if something got stuck there? Note that it's worth 8VP to
you, quite possibly, as arguably if my deputisation doesn't
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fails, the decision in question didn't exist when woggle attempted to
democratise it, so eir action failed due to not clearly specifying what
it was
On 1 Oct 2008, at 17:07, Alexander Smith wrote:
That isn't a miswording, I sent the message but I had to send it
from a different address, and it seems not to have arrived. H.
Distributor Taral, can you check a-o to see if something got stuck
there? Note that it's worth 8VP to you, quite
Wooble wrote:
How much clearer could it be than specifying the exact ID number of
the proposal it intended to democritize?
The intent is to democratise a decision, not a proposal. The decision in
question didn't exist,
so there is no way woggle can have referred to it.
--
ais523
winmail.dat
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 09:26, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wooble wrote:
How much clearer could it be than specifying the exact ID number of
the proposal it intended to democritize?
The intent is to democratise a decision, not a proposal. The decision in
question didn't exist,
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 00:02, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have 54 chits.
If the following series of actions would otherwise fail as a whole,
then I take none of them.
{
I deposit 7 1 crops, 4 3 crops, 5 7 crops, 7 8 crops, and 11 9 crops
for 311 chits. This brings me to a total
Well, I didn't say which one. Also, I don't read SELL (5VP) like that at all.
The obvious, and only equitable meaning, is that BobTHJ filed a sell ticket for
5VP, and then voted 5 times as required by the ticket; SELL (5VP) is a vote to
endorse a player who pays 5VP, and multiplying that by 5
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I didn't say which one. Also, I don't read SELL (5VP) like that at all.
The obvious, and only equitable meaning, is that BobTHJ filed a sell ticket
for 5VP, and then voted 5 times as required by the ticket; SELL
root wrote:
The actual wording of the contract does not agree with you. A vote
of SELL(X - Y) on an Agoran decision is equivalent to posting a Sell
Ticket with a cost of X and voting to endorse the filler of that
ticket 5 votes of SELL(X - Y), then, is plainly equivalent to
posting 5
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
The actual wording of the contract does not agree with you. A vote
of SELL(X - Y) on an Agoran decision is equivalent to posting a Sell
Ticket with a cost of X and voting to endorse the filler of that
root:
FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not
for casting a single vote of FOO x 3.
Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't explain
whether FOO is expanded before or after the multiplication. As a result, your
vote probably fails
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root:
FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not
for casting a single vote of FOO x 3.
Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't
explain whether FOO is expanded
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:24, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root:
FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not
for casting a single vote of FOO x 3.
Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't
explain whether FOO is expanded
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't
explain whether FOO is expanded before or after the multiplication. As a
result, your vote probably fails altogether due to the ambiguity, as does
root:
To put it in algebraic terms, FOO expands to a vote. The
multiplication multiplies the number of votes. I don't see what's
ambiguous about that.
The fact that FOO might not be a constant. It's ambiguous whether you're
multiplying the result of the expansion of one mention of FOO, or if
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fails, the decision in question didn't exist when woggle attempted to
democratise it, so eir action failed due
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 17:07, Alexander Smith wrote:
That isn't a miswording, I sent the message but I had to send it from a
different address, and it seems not to have arrived. H. Distributor Taral,
can you check a-o to see if something got stuck there?
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Er, I'm afraid I don't see the relevance.
If multiple tickets were created, filling one would be sufficient to
require the voter to vote to eir limit. If two such tickets were
filled with different options, e'd be in trouble.
--
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ambiguity is in whether the SELL(5VP) or the x5 is expanded first. You
seem to think the x5 is expanded first, but I still can't see any evidence
for this view.
VOTE x 5 is, by game custom, shorthand for I perform
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root:
To put it in algebraic terms, FOO expands to a vote. The
multiplication multiplies the number of votes. I don't see what's
ambiguous about that.
The fact that FOO might not be a constant. It's ambiguous whether
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root:
FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not
for casting a single vote of FOO x 3.
Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it
root wrote:
It's not a macro. The agreement clearly refers to SELL(5VP) as being
a conditional vote.
In that case, it has to be able to /retroactively/ create a sell ticket at the
time the voting period ends. Does the act of casting the vote create a sell
ticket? Voting and creating sell
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Contracts aren't algebra. Perhaps we should hear from BobTHJ about intent.
-G.
I realize that. I was only casting it that way because ais523 was
insisting on interpreting the vote as an algebraic expression to be
parsed.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:50, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Contracts aren't algebra. Perhaps we should hear from BobTHJ about intent.
-G.
FWIW my intent was to sell all 5 of my votes for a total of 5VP.
BobTHJ
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SELL(5VP) does two things: it creates a sell ticket, and it casts a vote.
Your argument, that SELL (5VP) is a conditional vote, would create the sell
ticket at the time the proposal is resolved, which is clearly absurd.
root:
No, my argument is that it's a conditional vote that, per the
contract, creates a sell ticket when cast.
Well my argument is that as many people put a different interpretation on it,
you can't claim that you are /unambiguously/ correct; BobTHJ and I both went
with a different, entirely
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well my argument is that as many people put a different interpretation on it,
you can't claim that you are /unambiguously/ correct; BobTHJ and I both went
with a different, entirely reasonable, interpretation of the
root:
False dilemma. It's also possible that your interpretation is wrong,
in which case the proposal fails.
At least two people came up with that interpretation in good faith. It
certainly isn't unambiguously wrong.
--
ais523
winmail.dat
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root:
False dilemma. It's also possible that your interpretation is wrong,
in which case the proposal fails.
At least two people came up with that interpretation in good faith. It
certainly isn't unambiguously wrong.
On 1 Oct 2008, at 19:06, Bayes wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled None the (AI=1):
{{{
Was only meant to send once, sorry.
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:50, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Contracts aren't algebra. Perhaps we should hear from BobTHJ about intent.
-G.
FWIW my intent was to sell all 5 of my votes for a total of 5VP.
BobTHJ
If the two parties (ais523
Goethe:
In this case of disagreement between parties (root vs. ais523) then you have
to
go to strict impartial logical interpretation etc.
I thought you were a fan of equity? Besides, this is a case where a dispute in
the meaning of a contract affects something that should be determined
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:19, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wooble wrote:
I CFJ on the following statements, barring ais523:
I CFJ on the following statement, barring root:
A vote that relies on terminology defined in a public contract
satisfies R683(c)'s requirement to clearly
On 1 Oct 2008, at 19:05, Bayes wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled No spring ii office
and (AI=1):
{{{
If proposal 5111 was adopted, amend rule 1871 by adding the
following information:
with this text:
the sum of the source and destination are the nominees, quorum is
1/2
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
Goethe:
In this case of disagreement between parties (root vs. ais523) then you have
to
go to strict impartial logical interpretation etc.
I thought you were a fan of equity? Besides, this is a case where a dispute
in the meaning of a contract
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 19:05, Bayes wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled No spring ii office and (AI=1):
{{{
If proposal 5111 was adopted, amend rule 1871 by adding the following
information:
with this text:
the sum of the source and
CoE: The publisher of the above CoE is not the Assessor. (The assessor
didn't publish the original document, so e can't usefully deny CoEs on
it anyways.)
I don't think that's a genuine CoE (it's not obvious what it's referring to),
but the document was published by the Monster deputising for
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:41, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CoE: The publisher of the above CoE is not the Assessor. (The assessor
didn't publish the original document, so e can't usefully deny CoEs on
it anyways.)
I don't think that's a genuine CoE (it's not obvious what it's
root wrote:
BobTHJ's exact vote was SELL(5VP) x5. This is five sell tickets,
each corresponding to a single vote, not one sell ticket corresponding
to five votes. However, ais523 only filled one of these tickets: I
fill BobTHJ's open sell ticket on proposal 5707, causing em to endorse
me
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Especially with democratization in play, root's vote is
unambiguous: SELL (5 VP - AGAINST) x 3, unbought, thus
(due to democratization) a single AGAINST.
That's the last thing it is given a collection of (some fairly
disinterested) parties argue for
tusho wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 19:05, Bayes wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled No spring ii office
and (AI=1):
{{{
If proposal 5111 was adopted, amend rule 1871 by adding the
following information:
with this text:
the sum of the source and destination are the nominees,
On 1 Oct 2008, at 20:54, Ed Murphy wrote:
Make it a bit more grammar-specific and I'll support it for
Mad Scientist.
Heh, it wouldn't be able to do Monsterization atm, but I could
definitely write one - detecting nouns shouldn't be too hard.
Wooble wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The text of the contract that defined the options was not published during
the voting period, and rule 2172 does not make an allowance for text
published /before/ the voting period.
BobTHJ published
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 12:53:00 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Hold on here. Now we get to the point where a legitimate
communication is held up. Does this violate R101 participation
rights? -Goethe
On the other hand, in a case where
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 03:20:04 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 20:54, Ed Murphy wrote:
Make it a bit more grammar-specific and I'll support it for
Mad Scientist.
Heh, it wouldn't be able to do Monsterization atm, but I could
definitely write one - detecting nouns shouldn't
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ais523 wrote:
Murphy:
In any case, I deny this CoE (to clear up my obligation to respond
to it), and will let the relevant CFJ take care of it from here.
I publically state that Murphy's attempt to resolve proposal 5707 is
Murphy wrote:
Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:21:26 -0700 Voting period of Proposal 5707 begins
Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:13:41 -0600 Vote Market text published
Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:21:26 -0700 Voting period of Proposal 5707 ends
Yep, I got the timing wrong, and I've already admitted my mistake. (That's
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, I got the timing wrong, and I've already admitted my mistake. (That's
during or close to the period of time during which emails to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] got held up for random lengths of time and arrived in random
On 1 Oct 2008, at 22:35, Ben Caplan wrote:
I believe it was decided that the most natural Monsterization
of judgment was Monsteredict. Can you write a script to make that
kind of analysis?
Did I say it'd produce the most natural monsterization all the time?
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:02, Bayes wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled Ordinary for a of
ff
(AI=1):
{{{
Repeal rule 2142
Modify Rule 2138, replace: c) A term explicitly defined by that
chamber.
Pavitra wrote:
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 02:26:17 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I submit the following Proposal entitled No More Monster Deputy:
In Rule 2193, remove:
Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a
particular office (deputise for that office) if:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a
Uh, you removed Monster; this would just allow *anyone* to deputise
without announcing intent.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It isn't usually meant to submit this fast, but comex fixed it so that the
proposals were shorter, so this is an example.
What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are
anything that we might actually consider
ais523 wrote:
Yep, I got the timing wrong, and I've already admitted my mistake.
(That's during or close to the period of time during which emails to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] got held up for random lengths of time and arrived
in random order.)
And that's what happens on my end when (as you probably
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:09, Ian Kelly wrote:
What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are
anything that we might actually consider adopting.
-root
Bayes is a Fully Mechanical Automation of Gamular Playing, Striving
to Play in As Many Forms As Possible, Regardless of Skill
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are
anything that we might actually consider adopting.
I would vote to repeal Rule 2142...
--
hopefully
minor evil
Murphy wrote:
I don't see why not. It seems functionally equivalent to saying
I intend to vote on this later, and then later voting normally
(including with a defined-at-the-same-time condition).
Just wait until you see the definition of TETRAHEDRON, then you might change
your mind.
--
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see why not. It seems functionally equivalent to saying
I intend to vote on this later, and then later voting normally
(including with a defined-at-the-same-time condition).
Not if the definition comes after the end of
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:09, Ian Kelly wrote:
What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are
anything that we might actually consider adopting.
Bayes is a Fully Mechanical Automation of Gamular Playing, Striving
to Play in As Many Forms As
tusho wrote:
I act on behalf of ais523 to cause ais523 to retract any previous
votes on proposal 5733 and vote FORx2 it.
How?
--
ais523
winmail.dat
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Murphy wrote:
I don't see why not. It seems functionally equivalent to saying
I intend to vote on this later, and then later voting normally
(including with a defined-at-the-same-time condition).
Just wait until you see
tusho wrote:
I act on behalf of ais523 to cause ais523 to retract any previous
votes on proposal 5733 and vote FORx2 it.
On what authority?
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:09, Ian Kelly wrote:
What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are
anything that we might actually consider adopting.
Bayes is a Fully
comex wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see why not. It seems functionally equivalent to saying
I intend to vote on this later, and then later voting normally
(including with a defined-at-the-same-time condition).
Not if the definition comes
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:27, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:09, Ian Kelly wrote:
What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are
anything that we might actually
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:27, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:09, Ian Kelly wrote:
What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are
anything that we might actually
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:37, Ian Kelly wrote:
I agree to the following:
This is a public contract. This is a pledge. root CAN amend or
terminate this contract at any time by announcement. Any person CAN
act on behalf of root to cast on any Agoran decision a vote endorsing
the partnership that
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:27, Ian Kelly wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, BAYES actually stands for BAYES is not an acronym.
BAYES stands for BAYES: Acronym? You Egg! Shenanigans...
It's a Calvin and Hobbes-style acronym for
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Sometimes gmail's message threading is annoying...
That is why I play Agora with Thunderbird instead of GMail's web interface.
--
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)
PGP public key available from http://pgp.mit.edu/
PGP Key ID: 0x14B456ED
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:37, Ian Kelly wrote:
I agree to the following:
This is a public contract. This is a pledge. root CAN amend or
terminate this contract at any time by announcement. Any person CAN
act on behalf of
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 05:01:41 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 22:35, Ben Caplan wrote:
I believe it was decided that the most natural Monsterization
of judgment was Monsteredict. Can you write a script to make
that kind of analysis?
Did I say it'd produce the most natural
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 05:07:01 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 02:26:17 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I submit the following Proposal entitled No More Monster
Deputy:
In Rule 2193, remove:
That's boring.
[Makes fast and sudden deputisation a
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Bayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bayes votes as follows:
5736 FOR*2
5737 FOR*2
5738 FOR*2
Note that this is not favoritism. Bayes keeps generating random
proposals to submit until it's found one that it will vote for.
Therefore, it will only ever vote against
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The quoted notice is invalid because it lacks information required by
Rule 107. Specifically, the following information was not provided:
(c) A clear indication of the options available.
CFJ 1800 (and
On 02/10/2008, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 05:01:41 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 22:35, Ben Caplan wrote:
I believe it was decided that the most natural Monsterization
of judgment was Monsteredict. Can you write a script to make
that kind of
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The quoted notice is invalid because it lacks information required by
Rule 107. Specifically, the following information was not provided:
(c)
Elliott Hird wrote:
We heard you the first time with your giant toppost.
I apologize for spamming everyone with these notices, but there were
five separate proposal distributions that I was dealing with. I quoted
the entire notice and put my notice on top (toppost as you say) since my
notice
We heard you the first time with your giant toppost.
On 02/10/2008, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The quoted notice is invalid because it lacks information required by
Rule 107. Specifically, the following information was not provided:
(c) A clear indication of the
comex wrote:
For any Agoran decision with an adoption index, the available options
are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT.
Yes, yes... I am aware of the options. The issue is that the notice
didn't specify them.
Besides, are those truly the ONLY options? Isn't there an option to
endorse another player?
On 02/10/2008, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Elliott Hird wrote:
We heard you the first time with your giant toppost.
I apologize for spamming everyone with these notices, but there were
five separate proposal distributions that I was dealing with. I quoted
the entire
Elliott Hird wrote:
Some distributespam was testing bayes
Those proposals are easy enough to deal with. I'm not too worried about
them, yet.
--
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)
PGP public key available from http://pgp.mit.edu/
PGP Key ID: 0x14B456ED
Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The quoted notice is invalid because it lacks information required by
Rule 107. Specifically, the following information was not provided:
(c) A clear indication of the options available.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Besides, are those truly the ONLY options? Isn't there an option to
endorse another player? Contracts (Vote Market in particular) appear to
have added additional options. Given the controversy regarding the
On Sep 30, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CHAMPION BY:
CARDS Goddess Eris, Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root
MANIAC Craig, root
PARADOX Goethe, Murphy, root, BobTHJ, ais523, ehird
I just realized that root would have qualified for the patent title
On Oct 1, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 04:33, Sgeo wrote:
I come off hold.
Because you had a cold.
Welcome back to the fold.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
root wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5719 O 1 1.0 comex Raargh!
endorse Bayes x 3
Unfortunately, Bayes wasn't eligible to vote on that proposal. I
instead vote (endorse ais523) x 3.
Ineffective, need to retract the
Sir Toby wrote:
The quoted notice is invalid because it lacks information required by
Rule 107. Specifically, the following information was not provided:
(c) A clear indication of the options available.
IMO calling it a proposal batch is a reasonably clear indication
that the options
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5719 O 1 1.0 comex Raargh!
endorse Bayes x 3
Unfortunately, Bayes wasn't eligible to vote on that proposal. I
instead
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5719 O 1 1.0 comex Raargh!
endorse
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 09:18:24 pm Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Sep 30, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CHAMPION BY:
CARDS Goddess Eris, Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root
MANIAC Craig, root
PARADOX Goethe, Murphy, root, BobTHJ, ais523, ehird
99 matches
Mail list logo
