Re: DIS: Re: BUS: MC

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 08/10/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I intend, with monstrous consent, to add this rule to the ruleset >>> {Sgeo gains the patent title Sca

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5734-5739

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 5734 O 1 1.0 Wooble No More Monster Deputy >> FORx8 > > Your voting limit on these ordinary proposals is 1. (They were > distributed after your platonic demotion from Alpha at the start > of the month, but before

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Noteworthy

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:22 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But it's not a public forum. > > On whose authority? I believe that is the right question posed the wrong way. On whose authority is it a public forum? -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trou

DIS: Re: BUS: banking

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend, without 3 objections, to change the exchange rate for WRV to > 200, although it's probably too late to save the Bank's digit farm > this month. I intend to deposit WRV if this rate happens. -- Taral <[EMAIL PRO

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: MC

On 08/10/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I intend, with monstrous consent, to add this rule to the ruleset >> {Sgeo gains the patent title Scamster. This rule repeals itself after >> Sgeo gains the Patent Title Scamster

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Using one scam to fix another

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:58 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> A proposal takes effect when it is adopted. I would argue that a rule >> is constantly in effect. As long as the condition for repealing >> itself is not met,

DIS: #really-a-cow log posting

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5764-5764

Dvorak Herring wrote: > I vote: > > NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE > 5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now > > FOR NttPF

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Using one scam to fix another

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A proposal takes effect when it is adopted. I would argue that a rule > is constantly in effect. As long as the condition for repealing > itself is not met, the effect is not to repeal itself; but once the > condition is met,

DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5764-5764

I vote: 5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now FOR -- Dvorak Herring

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: ...just in case...

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CFJ 2117 That contradicts CFJ 2002. "Monster" and by association "Monstrous" are either defined by the rules or not. It can't be both ways. -root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Using one scam to fix another

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:41 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ah, but it is relevant for making rule changes. R105 doesn't allow >> rule changes to be performed by any other mechanism than the one it >> provides, and it p

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: ...just in case...

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:23 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Really, P5719 passed at the worst possible time; I didn't even expect >>> it to pass.

DIS: Re: BUS: ...just in case...

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:23 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Really, P5719 passed at the worst possible time; I didn't even expect >> it to pass. Nevertheless... >> >> I intend, with Monstrous Consent, to remove this fro

DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5764-5764

I vote: > > NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE > 5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now > FOR -- Dvorak Herring

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Using one scam to fix another

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ah, but it is relevant for making rule changes. R105 doesn't allow > rule changes to be performed by any other mechanism than the one it > provides, and it provides effects, not actions. So I'll grant that > the non-rule-chang

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Using one scam to fix another

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:36 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:16 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I CFJ on the statement: { The Patent Title Scamster has been revoked >>> from come. } >> >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Using one scam to fix another

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:16 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I CFJ on the statement: { The Patent Title Scamster has been revoked >> from come. } > > Trivially FALSE. ais523 wasn't acting on behalf of the monster when e

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Using one scam to fix another

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:28 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> CFJ 2002 found that rule 2193 was the Monster, and nobody objected to >>> this at the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Using one scam to fix another

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:16 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I CFJ on the statement: { The Patent Title Scamster has been revoked > from come. } Trivially FALSE. ais523 wasn't acting on behalf of the monster when e attempted that. -root

DIS: Re: BUS: MC

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend, with monstrous consent, to add this rule to the ruleset > {Sgeo gains the patent title Scamster. This rule repeals itself after > Sgeo gains the Patent Title Scamster} FYI, it's uncouth to copy somebody else's scam. -root

DIS: Re: BUS: ...just in case...

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:23 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Really, P5719 passed at the worst possible time; I didn't even expect > it to pass. Nevertheless... > > I intend, with Monstrous Consent, to remove this from Rule 2193: > A player MAY perform an action on behalf of The Monster

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Using one scam to fix another

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:28 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> CFJ 2002 found that rule 2193 was the Monster, and nobody objected to >> this at the time. Therefore, rule 2192 implies that the Mad Scientist >> CAN act on be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Using one scam to fix another

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> No, it doesn't. It lists possible effects that rule 2193 can have on >> the rules. Nothing in rule 2141 describes those effects as actions. > > "action" is no

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Using one scam to fix another

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, it doesn't. It lists possible effects that rule 2193 can have on > the rules. Nothing in rule 2141 describes those effects as actions. "action" is not defined. answers.com: "Something done or accomplished; a deed." Any

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

On 7 Oct 2008, at 23:35, comex wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (list of numbers which provides absolutely no context, forcing me to go back to the relevant distributions to find out what's being voted on) *sigh*. Yeah, we got Bayes to sup

DIS: Re: BUS: Using one scam to fix another

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:28 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CFJ 2002 found that rule 2193 was the Monster, and nobody objected to > this at the time. Therefore, rule 2192 implies that the Mad Scientist > CAN act on behalf of rule 2193 to take any action that rule 2193 "may > take". Rule 214

Re: DIS: Listery

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:47 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > test Note that this is NttPF and there do not appear to be any actions in the headers of this message.

DIS: Listery

test -- ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2172 assigned to root

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:02 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> As the caller suggests, it is clear from R2193 and the first paragraph >>> of R2192 tha

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2172 assigned to root

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:02 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As the caller suggests, it is clear from R2193 and the first paragraph >> of R2192 that the Monster fits the intensional definition. I >> therefore assign a ju

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (list of numbers which provides absolutely no context, forcing me to > go back to the relevant distributions to find out what's being voted > on) *sigh*.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5734-5739

Taral wrote: >> 5734 O 1 1.0 Wooble No More Monster Deputy > FORx8 Your voting limit on these ordinary proposals is 1. (They were distributed after your platonic demotion from Alpha at the start of the month, but before your promotion on October 5.)

DIS: Re: ?spam? BUS: Using one scam to fix another

On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 23:28 +0100, ais523 wrote: > Then, I revoke the Patent Title Scamster from comex. By the way, this is in thanks to comex for coming up with the scam in the first place; I didn't really intend the #really-a-cow situation to last all that long, and this scam seems like a good wa

Re: DIS: Draft ruling in CFJ 2193

On Oct 5, 2008, at 7:33 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: OscarMeyr wrote: As noted by Murphy in eir support of filing this CFJ, the ninny did not use this alternate registration for material gain, so Exile is overkill. I therefore DRAFT sentence the ninny to the CHOKEY for the maximum of 180 days. E di

DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Water Rights Enforcement

On Oct 7, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Roger Hicks wrote: On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 17:12, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I request subsidisation, if it is possible for me to obtain it. - I create a Mill (land #169) with an Operator of * and a WRV in the possession of OscarMeyr Anybody

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Noteworthy

On 7 Oct 2008, at 22:16, Taral wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:11 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nah, he knew about Agora and the public-forumness. And I clarified that he was now a player, but I think he already kinda knew. But it's not a public forum. On whose authority? -- ehi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Noteworthy

On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 14:16 -0700, Taral wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:11 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nah, he knew about Agora and the public-forumness. > > > > And I clarified that he was now a player, but I think he already kinda knew. > > But it's not a public forum. > Well...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Noteworthy

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:11 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nah, he knew about Agora and the public-forumness. > > And I clarified that he was now a player, but I think he already kinda knew. But it's not a public forum. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any furt

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Noteworthy

On 7 Oct 2008, at 22:09, Taral wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 1:19 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: #really-a-cow: I register as oklopol. oklocod: welcome to Agora! ! ...what just happened? :) Someone should tell him that he's been tricked. :D Nah, he knew about Agora and the publi

DIS: Re: BUS: Noteworthy

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 1:19 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > #really-a-cow: > > I register as oklopol. > oklocod: welcome to Agora! > ! > ...what just happened? :) Someone should tell him that he's been tricked. :D -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2181 assigned to Taral

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:16 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I am root. >> >> I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal case against comex >> for breaking Rule 2170 by making the above statement. > > I'm interpreting this as equivalent to "Disclaimer: the above statement > may be

DIS: Re: BUS: Note spending

comex wrote: > I change my key to D. Ineffective, you already changed it to D# this month.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5764-5764

ehird wrote: >No... because you actually said that you came off hold. Yes, I did. I was mistaken about what you were saying "don't be so sure" about. Sorry. -zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5764-5764

I wrote: >Is that a threat to falsify your log? Ah, I've looked at the context again, and this interpretation doesn't make sense. (I thought the "don't be so sure" was replying to "e reactivated emself".) -zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5764-5764

On 7 Oct 2008, at 20:12, Zefram wrote: ehird wrote: Don't be so sure... Is that a threat to falsify your log? -zefram No... because you actually said that you came off hold. others can back me up. -- ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5764-5764

ehird wrote: >Don't be so sure... Is that a threat to falsify your log? -zefram

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

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 8:24 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can you re-post the agreement so I can read it over? (Somwhere I lost > which was the final copy) > > BobTHJ Here you go: On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 6:39 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree to the following: > > {The

Re: DIS: Contestmaster Points

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oops, I just realized I have been forgetting these. > > Contestmasters, please confirm you have completed your duties as > required by the contests. Also confirm the number of players per > contest each month. Here's what I sh

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5764-5764

ais523 wrote: > On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 11:31 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: >>> 5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now >> AGAINST x 5. "Private" is not a legal value of the publicity switch, >> so this proposal does nothing. >> > Oh dear, it should be Foreign, shouldn't it? Unfortunately

DIS: Re: BUS: Fantasy Rules Contest

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As required by the Fantasy Rules Contest contract, I award points as > follows for the week ending September 21 (the Fantasy Rules Contest's Er, that should be "the week ending October 5". -root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5764-5764

On 7 Oct 2008, at 19:37, Ed Murphy wrote: Zefram wrote: I hereby vote: 5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now FOR Can't, you're inactive. Don't be so sure... -- ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5764-5764

On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 11:37 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > Zefram wrote: > > > I hereby vote: > > > >> 5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now > > FOR > > Can't, you're inactive. No e isn't, e reactivated emself in #really-a-cow. -- ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5764-5764

Zefram wrote: > I hereby vote: > >> 5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now > FOR Can't, you're inactive.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination

ais523 wrote: > On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 09:42 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: >> Burying hidden actions in large amounts of text is the oldest scam in >> the book. It's not interesting at all. > Well, in this case I'm trying to test the forum rules, and in particular > R101. After all, as far as I can tell

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes

On 7 Oct 2008, at 18:36, Sgeo wrote: To elaborate since you might not understand being new: Next time to the Public Forum. You sent it to a-d, but things only happen to a-b. :-P Not true. Things like pledges can happen in a-d, as I found out to my dismay.. Different kinda thing. -- ehird

DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5764-5764

On 7 Oct 2008, at 17:55, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: This distribution of proposal 5764 initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt it. The eligible voters for ordinary proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic proposals are the active first-class players,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes

> To elaborate since you might not understand being new: > Next time to the Public Forum. > You sent it to a-d, but things only happen to a-b. :-P Not true. Things like pledges can happen in a-d, as I found out to my dismay..

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5764-5764

On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 11:31 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > > 5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now > > AGAINST x 5. "Private" is not a legal value of the publicity switch, > so this proposal does nothing. > Oh dear, it should be Foreign, shouldn't it? Unfortunately I was in so much o

Re: DIS: #really-a-cow log posting

On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 17:05 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Here are some recent logs from #really-a-cow: this covers all logs since my > previous > message about this. > > Tue Oct 7 16:59:52 UTC 2008: :[EMAIL PROTECTED] PRIVMSG #really-a-cow > :Zefram: you're an Epsilon, so 1 > Tue Oct 7 17

DIS: #really-a-cow log posting

Here are some recent logs from #really-a-cow: this covers all logs since my previous message about this. Tue Oct 7 16:59:52 UTC 2008: :[EMAIL PROTECTED] PRIVMSG #really-a-cow :Zefram: you're an Epsilon, so 1 Tue Oct 7 17:01:46 UTC 2008: :[EMAIL PROTECTED] PRIVMSG #really-a-cow :kay Tue Oct 7

Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: fora

On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 17:31 +0100, ehird wrote: > http://91.105.115.57:/logs.cgi I've also got TNP2 to log the channel, and it's putting its (completely raw) logs up at , for when raw logs are useful. I'm thinking about the best way to get log emails to

DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal CFJ

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I withdraw my support. Cite R478 instead, and I'll reinstate it. I withdraw my intent to initiate a criminal CFJ.

DIS: Re: BUS: fora

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I CFJ on the following: > > "An IRC channel is a forum." > > Argument: strong game custom indicates that only mailing lists are > fora, and no rule says otherwise. I disagree. The whole point of using the word "forum" is

Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: fora

oops Begin forwarded message: From: ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 7 October 2008 17:28:31 BDT To: ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: fora On 7 Oct 2008, at 17:27, ehird wrote: On 7 Oct 2008, at 17:16, Ed Murphy wrote: I issue a standing request (until I withdraw it) to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: fora

On 7 Oct 2008, at 17:16, Ed Murphy wrote: I issue a standing request (until I withdraw it) to post such logs at least once daily. Will http://91.105.115.57:/logs.xml suffice? (Note: Is rendered nicely via CSS - not a raw XML dump.) -- ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal CFJ

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:57 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 11:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ alleging that >> tusho violated Rule 101 by kicking me out of the #really-a-cow >> channel. > E kicked out someone wit

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination

On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 09:06 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > Right != actuality. In particular, R478's "should ensure e can receive" > is pointless otherwise. Agreed. I'm not sure if the ruleset handles this sort of thing well at all, which is the main point of the exercise. I'm confused. -- ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: fora

On 7 Oct 2008, at 17:08, Ian Kelly wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Until this is resolved, is anyone in a decent position to put a bot on that channel and have it re-send to a-b periodically? I would volunteer, but I won't have time to set it up u

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: fora

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Until this is resolved, is anyone in a decent position to put a bot > on that channel and have it re-send to a-b periodically? I would volunteer, but I won't have time to set it up until tomorrow evening. -root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: fora

On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 09:02 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > Wooble wrote: > > > I CFJ on the following: > > > > "An IRC channel is a forum." > > > > Argument: strong game custom indicates that only mailing lists are > > fora, and no rule says otherwise. > > A web forum would also count. > > Until th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: fora

On 7 Oct 2008, at 17:02, Ed Murphy wrote: Wooble wrote: I CFJ on the following: "An IRC channel is a forum." Argument: strong game custom indicates that only mailing lists are fora, and no rule says otherwise. A web forum would also count. Until this is resolved, is anyone in a decent pos

DIS: Re: BUS: fora

Wooble wrote: > I CFJ on the following: > > "An IRC channel is a forum." > > Argument: strong game custom indicates that only mailing lists are > fora, and no rule says otherwise. A web forum would also count. Until this is resolved, is anyone in a decent position to put a bot on that channel

DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal CFJ

On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 11:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ alleging that > tusho violated Rule 101 by kicking me out of the #really-a-cow > channel. E kicked out someone with the nick 'tusho'. Also, is it possible to violate rule 101? -- ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination

On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 09:42 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > Burying hidden actions in large amounts of text is the oldest scam in > the book. It's not interesting at all. Well, in this case I'm trying to test the forum rules, and in particular R101. After all, as far as I can tell R101 implies that you'

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination

On 7 Oct 2008, at 16:42, Ian Kelly wrote: Burying hidden actions in large amounts of text is the oldest scam in the book. It's not interesting at all. -root The publicforuming, however, is. -- ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: Why to read the small print

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend, without objection, to make the channel #really-a-cow on the > IRC server irc.freenode.net:6667 cease to be an Agoran public forum. You can't. You're not the Registrar.

DIS: Re: BUS: Why to read the small print

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend, without objection, to make the channel #really-a-cow on the > IRC server irc.freenode.net:6667 cease to be an Agoran public forum. You have to be Registrar to do that. -root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Breaking the rules

ais523 wrote: > On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 11:08 -0400, comex wrote: >> obligations are created; it's just that TITE makes these obligations > Murphy, I suggest adding TITE to your acronyms list. It seems likely to > come up more often in future... I'll reconsider the issue once the recent proposals t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:39 AM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7 Oct 2008, at 16:36, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >> I nominate root, Murphy, and Wooble as Registrar. >> >> --Wooble > > > Would you prefer a game where there were no interesting scams at all? Burying hidden actions in large amount

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:39 AM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would you prefer a game where there were no interesting scams at all? I'd prefer a game in which I didn't have to sit in a fucking IRC channel all day long.

DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination

On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 11:36 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I nominate root, Murphy, and Wooble as Registrar. > I nominate myself as Registrar. -- ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Nomination

On 7 Oct 2008, at 16:36, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I nominate root, Murphy, and Wooble as Registrar. --Wooble Would you prefer a game where there were no interesting scams at all? -- ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5753-5763

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 10:45 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hmm, why are these proposals out of order? > Proposals don't have to be distributed in any particular order, nor > numbered. The PNP assigns temporary numbers (small numbers like 1 or 2) > to proposals until they're allocated the

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5753-5763

On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 10:30 -0400, comex wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 8:44 AM, The PerlNomic Partnership > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE > > Hmm, why are these proposals out of order? Proposals don't have to be distributed in any particular order, nor num

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5753-5763

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 10:30 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmm, why are these proposals out of order? My guess is it's caused by perl's glob() using ASCII sorting by default, but there's no guarantee that proposals will get added to the pool in the order they're submitted anyway.

DIS: Contestmaster Points

Oops, I just realized I have been forgetting these. Contestmasters, please confirm you have completed your duties as required by the contests. Also confirm the number of players per contest each month. Here's what I show: AAA (BobTHJ) August - 14 points September - 16 points Enigma (ais523)

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5753-5763

On 7 Oct 2008, at 14:00, Bayes wrote: Bayes votes as follows: 5756 O 1 1.0 comex cdm014, Zefram, avpx, Ivan Hope, root, Murphy (fixed) FOR*2 (36% sure) 5762 O 1 1.0 comex The Endless Repeals: 2164.2 FOR*2 (47% sure) 5763 O 1 1.0 comex The Endl

DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 16:27, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I transfer all my lands, crops, WRVs, and chits to Bayes. > The chit transfer portion of this was effective. BobTHJ

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

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 04:35, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 7:23 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Contract >>> Changes can be performed with the consent of a majority of Llamas; >>> this is the only way a person can join this contract. >> >> Can I join? > > Well,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Breaking the rules

On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 11:08 -0400, comex wrote: > obligations are created; it's just that TITE makes these obligations Murphy, I suggest adding TITE to your acronyms list. It seems likely to come up more often in future... -- ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2181 assigned to Taral

comex wrote: > On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> = Criminal Case 2181 = >>> >>>root broke Rule 2170 by making the statement "I am comex.