Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Happy Birthday!

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Not least because you, er, didn't actually send the message in 1993. > > I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth. I don't li

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Recusals

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > so the question on sentencing became inapplicable when the previous > GUILTY judgement was set aside, but became applicable again when the > new GUILTY judgement was delivered; and the judgement of the question > on sentencing

DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes

On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 20:57 -0500, Dvorak Herring wrote: > I agree to the Bayes contract if I can. > This fails, the contract has no mechanism for doing so. -- ais523

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora

On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 16:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > FUGITIVES (Players who left Under a Cloud, unofficial list) > Player Date deregistered > - > Sir Toby 20 May 05 Sir Toby reregistered and ap

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5708-5726

On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 23:28 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > > 5725 D 1 2.0 Murphy Namespace conflicts (players) > invalid as previously noted I've corrected this with the PNP. I believe it will assign the corrected proposal the number 5741, although this could change as it doesn't assign ID

DIS: Re: BUS: Raising the stakes

On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 17:51 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > There having been no objection, I make this change. Yay, more points! -- ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] elections

On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 22:16 -0400, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > > For Clerk of the Courts, the valid options are Murphy and Goethe. > Goethe withdrew, so my vote is irrelevant. Not quite. My reading of the rule in question (which is really buggy and needs fixing) is that Goethe can still be elected if

DIS: Hello Agoran Watchers!

You are all listed on the Agoran records as Watchers. I'm sending this email to determine: * who is still watching (if you are, say hi!) * which of the email addresses are bouncing -- ais523 Agoran Registrar

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:19 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 20:57 -0500, Dvorak Herring wrote: >> I agree to the Bayes contract if I can. >> > This fails, the contract has no mechanism for doing so. You forget R2198: If a contract does not purport to regulate b

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes

On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 08:36 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:19 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 20:57 -0500, Dvorak Herring wrote: > >> I agree to the Bayes contract if I can. > >> > > This fails, the contract has no mechanism for doing so. > > You

DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Distribution of proposals 5732-5733

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:46 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 21:35 +0100, Alexander Smith wrote: >> TETRAHEDRON is a conditional vote; I will reveal what it means later >> in the voting period. > OK, time to reveal what TETRAHEDRON means. This is purely my own > definit

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:40 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wow, I didn't realise that rule existed. Game custom certainly seems to > go against it (all the contracts made recently that were intended to > allow arbitrary persons to join have explicitly allowed that, I think). > > Does this

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Contracts and Changes

On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 12:12 -0400, Sgeo wrote: > > Name: pledge #53 > > Contest: false > > Publicity: private > > Pledge: true > > Parties: Sgeo > > Contestmaster: none > > Text: {{{ > > This is a pledge, and a public contract. I pledge not to make any game > > relevant actions for 5 days, beginnin

DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 9:17 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Dvorak Herring > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I agree to the Bayes contract if I can. >> -- >> Dvorak Herring >> > > It seems this was successful, but unless you actually intend to work > on bayes.p

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or e could create eir own bayes.py that also sends messages from > [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's possible that bayes.py CANNOT act on behalf of Bayes, because 3. bayes.py is a script whose purpose is to act on behalf of Bayes in a g

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Contracts and Changes

On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 10:28 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 09:51, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Name: Points Relay Service > > Contest: false > > CoE: The PRS is a contest (or it should be. This would have been a > great chance to fix it). > I have a pending intenti

DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Distribution of proposals 5732-5733

On 3 Oct 2008, at 14:46, ais523 wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 21:35 +0100, Alexander Smith wrote: TETRAHEDRON is a conditional vote; I will reveal what it means later in the voting period. OK, time to reveal what TETRAHEDRON means. This is purely my own definition of it, and I don't know if th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Contracts and Changes

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:31, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 10:28 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 09:51, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Name: Points Relay Service >> > Contest: false >> >> CoE: The PRS is a contest (or it should be. This wo

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Contracts and Changes

On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 10:32 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 9:51 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Name: Fantasy Rules > > Parties: BobTHJ, Iammars, Murphy, pikhq, root, Quazie, Sir Toby, ais523 > > CoE: Goethe joined the contest on September 16. Also, the name is > "Fant

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Contracts and Changes

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would consent to be its contestmaster if someone would take the AAA from me. You never responded to my offer to trade contests. Shall I assume you're not interested? -root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:28 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Or e could create eir own bayes.py that also sends messages from >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > It's possible that bayes.py CANNOT act on behalf of Bayes, because >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes

On 3 Oct 2008, at 17:52, Ian Kelly wrote: Or you could interpret it as requiring you to allow Dvorak to control it indirectly. -root I think we'll stick to comex's interpretation for now. Also, someone fix this, seriously. I never knew this and I bet most people don't, see: all the 'can j

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 11:26 AM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, someone fix this, seriously. I never knew this and I bet most people > don't, see: all the 'can join by announcement' clauses. IIRC, the reason we added it in the first place was that most contracts (at least those at the ti

DIS: Re: ?spam? BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2086 and 2087, and thoughts from Agora's history

On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 18:54 +0100, ais523 wrote: > I submit the following arguments and judgement on CFJs 2086 and 2087: Oh, I just noticed I didn't properly address comex's arguments on 2086b. I'll say only that as they were about semantics, they were unrelated to the other arguments about the cas

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 15:45, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well... flaming bobba smurf. > > All right. > > Let's see what I've got here. > > FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV > Pavitra 8 5 612 7 11 2 > (transactions) +7 -7-4 +1

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2086 and 2087, and thoughts from Agora's history

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote: . The proposal made radical changes to the ruleset, along with two others submitted at a similar time, and seemed to have been part of a large ruleset simplification. (Goe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:17, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 15:45, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Well... flaming bobba smurf. >> >> All right. >> >> Let's see what I've got here. >> >> FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV >> Pavitra

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On Friday 03 October 2008 02:24:08 pm Charles Reiss wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:17, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 15:45, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Well... flaming bobba smurf. > >> > >> All right. > >> > >> Let's see what I've got here.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Happy Birthday!

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:40 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And though we are both 15 years old, Agora is younger than me, alas. O.o -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Happy Birthday!

On 3 Oct 2008, at 21:58, Taral wrote: On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:40 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And though we are both 15 years old, Agora is younger than me, alas. O.o Why O.o? (I'm younger than ihope, if "O.o" means "you are young". :-P) -- ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: A Great Relief

On 3 Oct 2008, at 22:45, ihope wrote: I submit the following proposal, titled "A Great Relief", with adoption index 3: Repeal all rules except Rules 101, 104, 217, and 2029. Note that Rule 101 implies that CFJs still exist, implying that the CotC, offices, players, public fora, etc. still exist

DIS: Re: BUS: A Great Relief

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 14:53, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:45 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I submit the following proposal, titled "A Great Relief", with >> adoption index 3: Repeal all rules except Rules 101, 104, 217, and >> 2029. > > I retract that propo

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A Great Relief

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, ehird wrote: > On 3 Oct 2008, at 22:45, ihope wrote: > >> I submit the following proposal, titled "A Great Relief", with >> adoption index 3: Repeal all rules except Rules 101, 104, 217, and >> 2029. >> >> Note that Rule 101 implies that CFJs still exist, implying that the >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A Great Relief

On 3 Oct 2008, at 23:00, Charles Reiss wrote: I don't see how either proposal would be effective under R1698 (especially if the recently proposed amendment to R101 passes). Even if it is, I am strongly opposed to attempting to read into "game custom" entire mechanisms for changing the rules. -

DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes

I leave the Bayes Contract. On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:17 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Dvorak Herring > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree to the Bayes contract if I can. > > -- > > Dvorak Herring > > > > It seems this was successful, but unless you a

DIS: Proto-contract: The Llama Party

{The name of this contract is "The Llama Party." This is a public contract. Parties to this contract are known as Llamas. Any person CAN join this contract with the consent of a majority of Llamas. Any Llama CAN leave this contract by announcement. A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA (X), where

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes

On 4 Oct 2008, at 00:01, Dvorak Herring wrote: I leave the Bayes Contract. nttpf -- ehird

DIS: Re: Proto-contract: The Llama Party

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:30 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > {The name of this contract is "The Llama Party." This is a public > contract. Parties to this contract are known as Llamas. Any person CAN > join this contract with the consent of a majority of Llamas. Any Llama > CAN leave this con

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-contract: The Llama Party

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 16:31, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:30 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> {The name of this contract is "The Llama Party." This is a public >> contract. Parties to this contract are known as Llamas. Any person CAN >> join this contract with

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-contract: The Llama Party

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 16:31, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:30 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> {The name of this contract is "The Llama Party." This is a public >>> contract. Parties t

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-contract: The Llama Party

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 16:54, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 16:31, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:30 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: {The name of this con

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-contract: The Llama Party

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 16:54, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> You probably want a means to shed inactive Llamas (Any Llama CAN cause >>> a Llam

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-contract: The Llama Party

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:34 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess we can say "Any Llama can cause any Llama who is not an active > player to become inactive." right at the end of the last paragraph. ... I guess we can say "Any Llama can cause any Llama who is not an active player to ceas

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Happy Birthday!

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:12 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why O.o? > > (I'm younger than ihope, if "O.o" means "you are young". :-P) o.O -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown