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
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)
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
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
numbered.
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, nobody I've
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..
Lacking any
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 their
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
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 amounts of text is
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 to
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
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.
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
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
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 this is resolved, is
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
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
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
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 with the
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
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
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 to keep the
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.
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
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 of a
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
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.
--
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 R101
Zefram wrote:
I hereby vote:
5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now
FOR
Can't, you're inactive.
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
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
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
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 I was in so
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 show:
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 name of
ehird wrote:
Don't be so sure...
Is that a threat to falsify your log?
-zefram
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
comex wrote:
I change my key to D.
Ineffective, you already changed it to D# this month.
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 false, hence
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 1:19 PM, ehird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#really-a-cow:
oklocod I register as oklopol.
ais523 oklocod: welcome to Agora!
oklocod !
oklocod ...what just happened? :)
Someone should tell him that he's been tricked. :D
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if
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:
oklocod I register as oklopol.
ais523 oklocod: welcome to Agora!
oklocod !
oklocod ...what just happened? :)
Someone should tell him that he's been tricked. :D
Nah, he knew
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... from
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
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
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 judgement of
test
--
ehird
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.
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
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 process
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 not defined.
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 behalf of
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 with
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
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
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 time.
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
attempted
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. }
Trivially FALSE.
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-change
I vote:
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now
FOR
--
Dvorak Herring
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 from Rule 2193:
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.
I vote:
5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now
FOR
--
Dvorak Herring
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, the
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}
FYI,
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 trouble I
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 your
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 Scamster. This
68 matches
Mail list logo
