0x44 wrote:
> I wish to register as a player of Agora with the name 0x44.
Welcome to the game! May we call you -.. .- ... -.. .- ...
for short?
Quick guide to Agora for B players (in case we pick up any more in the
near future):
* Proposals to affect rules with Power > 1 need to re
root wrote:
>> 5767 D 1 2.0 Murphy Be careful what you start
> AGAINST. You can't withdraw intent.
Unregulated, so you can (but it currently has no effect).
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 09 October 2008 10:53:28 pm Charles Reiss wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 20:37, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> > I create the following crops in the possession of ais523:
>> >
>> > 8, 3, 5, 3, 0, 1, 4, 6, 5, 9, 3
>>
>> I
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It also raises the withdrawal rates, which makes it less attractive to
> deposit the currencies that didn't get raised. I've actually been
> thinking about lowering rates overall, which would benefit existing
> chit-holders by
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, without 3 Objections, to set each of the following exchange
> rates:
>
> 6 crops 85
> X crops 200
> (each pitch of Credits) 70
> Point Vchrs 50
>
> [It's generally A Goo
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 09 October 2008 05:34:37 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
>> 10. A farmer's milling queue is initially empty. A farmer (the
>> miller) may add milling jobs to the end of any farmer's milling
>> queue by announcement, with the co
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 21:53, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 20:37, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:09, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 15:42 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
Amend Rule 911 by replacing t
On Thursday 09 October 2008 05:34:37 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
> 10. A farmer's milling queue is initially empty. A farmer (the
> miller) may add milling jobs to the end of any farmer's milling
> queue by announcement, with the consent of that farmer. At the
> beginning of each week, after Digit Ranches
On Oct 9, 2008, at 8:53 PM, 0x44 wrote:
I wish to register as a player of Agora with the name 0x44.
IF 0x44 is a player:
Welcome to the game, 0x44!
ELSE
No need to request, go ahead and say that you do!
FI
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Oct 9, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I hereby announce the contracted THIRD ACTIVATION of the United Nomic
DEAD groups (the UNDEAD).
Alethiologers and Anemocrats will resubscribe to their usual fora,
links have been checked.
I further declare this a Full threat-level activation. As s
On Oct 7, 2008, at 6:35 PM, 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*.
What, you don't have n
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
>>> I, comex, the sole Member of the Deregiocrats, publicly pledge that
>>> The Private, Binding Agreement knows as the Articles of Confederation
>>
>> Nice
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 18:21, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5772 D 1 2.0 Murphy Loose ordering of ID numbers
> LLAMA (PRESENT)
The above vote is invalid per the Llama party agreement.
BobTHJ
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
>> I, comex, the sole Member of the Deregiocrats, publicly pledge that
>> The Private, Binding Agreement knows as the Articles of Confederation
>
> Nice google or look at the CotC database: the
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> I, comex, the sole Member of the Deregiocrats, publicly pledge that
> The Private, Binding Agreement knows as the Articles of Confederation
Nice google or look at the CotC database: the Articles of Confederation
in this particular format/legal binding were repea
On 9 Oct 2008, at 23:41, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I hereby announce the contracted THIRD ACTIVATION of the United Nomic
DEAD groups (the UNDEAD).
Alethiologers and Anemocrats will resubscribe to their usual fora,
links have been checked.
I further declare this a Full threat-level activation. As s
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 13:47 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> > Hmm... The Monster loophole's still open for me to deforum a-b
> > temporarily, and we could use the backups for a while. That would be
> > admitting defeat, though, really. It may be an option if everythi
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> Hmm... The Monster loophole's still open for me to deforum a-b
> temporarily, and we could use the backups for a while. That would be
> admitting defeat, though, really. It may be an option if everything goes
> wrong, though.
Too damaging. If this doesn't play
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:46 -0400, comex wrote:
>>> Issue 1 - "clear indication"
>> Dependent actions don't require a "clear indication" nowadays, but need
>> to be "previously unambiguously des
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 21:33 +0100, ehird wrote:
> It was ais523 who suggested the scam of a B Emergency in agora-business.
>
> I merely carried it out.
>
> Bye.
>
That was several months ago: ehird contacted me about going through with
it recently. I pulled out of it as soon as I realised how mu
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 16:21 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 4:18 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I suggest if we (on the Agoran side) don't move to stop this Spam (for
> >> this is what it is)
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 16:18 -0400, ihope wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:26 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here and Gone Again: a Registrar's Report
> >
> > Date of this Report: Thu 9 Oct 2008
> > Date of last Report: Fri 3 Oct 2008
> > Date last ratified : Fri 4 Jul 2008
> > Rat
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 13:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, ehird wrote:
> >> 4. THIS IS FUN!
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> Billy Pilgrim
>
> No.
>
> This is truly obnoxious, enough for someone like me to turn off delivery
> and Just Go Away.
>
> I suggest if we (on the Agoran side) don
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:46 -0400, comex wrote:
>>> Issue 1 - "clear indication"
>> Dependent actions don't require a "clear indication" nowadays, but need
>> to be "previously unambigu
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:46 -0400, comex wrote:
>> Issue 1 - "clear indication"
> Dependent actions don't require a "clear indication" nowadays, but need
> to be "previously unambiguously described". Quite possibly this makes a
> d
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:24 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Maybe we should have some way to get rid of inactive Watchers?
>
> Watchers being undefined, you can get rid of inactive ones at your discretion.
Last attempt, there were loud complaints of the
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:46 -0400, comex wrote:
>> Issue 1 - "clear indication"
> Dependent actions don't require a "clear indication" nowadays, but need
> to be "previously unambiguously described". Quite possibly this makes a
> d
test
--
ehird
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:46 -0400, comex wrote:
> Issue 1 - "clear indication"
Dependent actions don't require a "clear indication" nowadays, but need
to be "previously unambiguously described". Quite possibly this makes a
difference.
--
ais523
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:40 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is that a Refresh Proposal?
If I submit an RP it will be clearly labeled as such.
Before my assignment to CFJ 2211, I had heard of Steve's Spam Scam
only indirectly. For discussion, here is a copy of it, dug up from
Zefram's archives:
==
CFJ 1125
Rule 1883 has not been rep
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:34 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes, but them being officially undefined, it would be nice to get rid of
>> them officially.
>
> I submit the following Proposal:
>
> Express the Sen
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:31 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:24 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe we should have some way to get rid of inactive Watchers?
>
> Watchers being undefined, you can get rid of inactive ones at your discretion.
Yes, but them being officially
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:24 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe we should have some way to get rid of inactive Watchers?
Your text editor doesn't have a delete key?
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:24 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe we should have some way to get rid of inactive Watchers?
Watchers being undefined, you can get rid of inactive ones at your discretion.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:54, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 16:54, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I withdraw a 0-crop and 2 1-crops. I harvest 101, the number of a
>>> recently amen
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:22 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:26 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here and Gone Again: a Registrar's Report
>
> I pledge that as far as I can see, this report does not contain any scams.
No, it doesn't. It does contain new information, though.
(Sent to s-d so as many players see it as possible, sent to a-d
to make them get all scared.)
I become Paranoid.
I hoist the Black Watch Plaid.
Being the MoM, I am the Emergency Coordinator for this Emergency.
I designate the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the
Emergency Forum for this Emerg
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we wanted wins to be easily scammable at power 1, we wouldn't have
> winning secured at power 2.
Boring. Ladder scamming from Power=2 to Power=3 is probably
relatively easy (although I haven't looked into it in depth), wher
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No, I just mean what's your metric of "most people",
>
> Everyone in the discussion of ais523's judgement of CFJ 2213 concluded
> that it is reasonable, or at least nobody's clearly posted
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 12:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:38 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 12:36 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> >> I submit the following proposal titled "Secure points":
> >>
> >> Upmutate Rule 2136 to power 2.
> >> Upmutate Rule 2
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:38 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 12:36 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal titled "Secure points":
>>
>> Upmutate Rule 2136 to power 2.
>> Upmutate Rule 2179 to power 2, and amend it by appending to the first
>> paragr
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, I just mean what's your metric of "most people",
Everyone in the discussion of ais523's judgement of CFJ 2213 concluded
that it is reasonable, or at least nobody's clearly posted why it
isn't; besides, nobody's asked ais5
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 16:54, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I withdraw a 0-crop and 2 1-crops. I harvest 101, the number of a
>> recently amended rule, for 9 random crops.
>>
>> -root
>>
>
> I create the following
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Uh, how precisely did you measure that?
>
> I think it's reasonable that if most people think a scam worked, the
> results of the scam should be included in the Ruleset with a note that
> t
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 12:36 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I submit the following proposal titled "Secure points":
>
> Upmutate Rule 2136 to power 2.
> Upmutate Rule 2179 to power 2, and amend it by appending to the first
> paragraph the text:
>
> Changes to point holdings are secured.
>
They w
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
>> Did we ever learn who the werewolves were? I was kinda following along
>> and and some guesses. -G.
>
> No, I think we're still waiting for a fresh nomination and second.
The game is dead. Let's just call
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uh, how precisely did you measure that?
I think it's reasonable that if most people think a scam worked, the
results of the scam should be included in the Ruleset with a note that
the scam may have failed. If CFJ 2213 is aff
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:43 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 11:34 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>> CoE: This is missing the "Scams to fix Scams[ters]" rule I scammed into
>> the ruleset earlier this
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:43 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 11:34 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
> CoE: This is missing the "Scams to fix Scams[ters]" rule I scammed into
> the ruleset earlier this week.
Admitted. Public support for the
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 18:09 +0100, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 15:42 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Amend Rule 911 by replacing the definitions of REMAND and REASSIGN with
> I deposit an X crop with the RBoA. I withdraw a 1 crop from the RBoA. I
> harvest 911, the ID number of a recently ame
Wooble wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I also support this.
>> With the support to root and Goethe, I appeal the judgment in CFJ 2213.
>
> (This probably failed since I
ais523 wrote:
> Ah, so you think "may"="CAN" in one rule and "may"="MAY" in the other? I
> think that interpretation leads to many even worse scams; it would, for
> instance, allow me to get the Monster to do anything I liked that was
> legal, whether possible or not. (In particular, the ID-number
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 10:44 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ alleging that
>> ais523 violated Rule 2143 by failing to publish a Registrar's Report
>> last week (eir last report was published on 1 Sept.)
>>
>> R
Goethe wrote:
> Did we ever learn who the werewolves were? I was kinda following along
> and and some guesses. -G.
No, I think we're still waiting for a fresh nomination and second.
ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 09:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> ais523 wrote:
>>
>>> The loophole is still open, but only because I couldn't figure out an
>>> easy way to close it; I've promised to not use it further until I can
>>> figure out a sensible fix (or someone can tell me one), at
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 09:25 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I intend to continue being vaguely sloppy about this sort of thing,
>> as a standing object lesson to initiators who forget to disqualify.
> The problem being that comex probably didn't want to disqualify in
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> Hmm... I support this. Ideally I'd like an appeals panel to look at it
> and AFFIRM the judgement, so that it's been looked at by someone who
> isn't interested, but if I end up on the appeals panel I'll be
> REASSIGNing for obvious reasons. I think the judgemen
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 09:25 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I intend to continue being vaguely sloppy about this sort of thing,
> as a standing object lesson to initiators who forget to disqualify.
The problem being that comex probably didn't want to disqualify in this
case.
Hmm... maybe people should b
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 09:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > The loophole is still open, but only because I couldn't figure out an
> > easy way to close it; I've promised to not use it further until I can
> > figure out a sensible fix (or someone can tell me one), at which point I
> >
root wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I also support this.
>
> By the way, I think ais523's judgement is reasonable; I'm only
> supporting this on the grounds that e really shouldn't have been
> assigned to it in the first place.
I was thinking tha
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 10:07 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:02 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Well, I did address them during the converation, and Wooble withdrew eir
>>> intent as a result, so the support has no effect.
>>
>> Sur
ais523 wrote:
> The loophole is still open, but only because I couldn't figure out an
> easy way to close it; I've promised to not use it further until I can
> figure out a sensible fix (or someone can tell me one), at which point I
> can use it to close itself.
If it worked, then couldn't you us
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Werewolves (Murphy)
>> August - 9 points
>> September - 9 points
Did we ever learn who the werewolves were? I was kinda following along
and and some guesses. -G.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:53 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I think it would only be fair to trade 2 of our rules for 2 of their
>>> rules. Or 1 rule and a pick in next year's Rule Draft.
>>
>> Just as long as we don't end up with the Beast.
>
ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 20:49 -0700, Taral wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 4:08 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I really hope there are no more huge logs like this.
>>> #really-a-cow is no longer a Public Forum, so this really ought to be
>>> unnecessary.
>> Sounds good to
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 10:07 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:02 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, I did address them during the converation, and Wooble withdrew eir
> > intent as a result, so the support has no effect.
>
> Sure it does. What matters is whether Goe
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:02 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I did address them during the converation, and Wooble withdrew eir
> intent as a result, so the support has no effect.
Sure it does. What matters is whether Goethe announces that e
supports it, not the validity of eir reas
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I also support this.
>>
>> With the support to root and Goethe, I appe
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 08:56 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:43 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of
> >>> the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take, and
> >
>
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also support this.
By the way, I think ais523's judgement is reasonable; I'm only
supporting this on the grounds that e really shouldn't have been
assigned to it in the first place.
-root
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 15:59, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I harvest 2204, the number of a recent CFJ, for 2 WRV.
>> I harvest 2214, the number of a recent CFJ, for 2 WRV (using X for 2s).
>> I harvest 2210, the number of a recent CFJ, for 2 WRV (using X for 2s).
>
> Er, if that last
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> The loophole is still open, but only because I couldn't figure out an
> easy way to close it;
It's trivial.
1. Remove you as monsterkeepor.
2. Repeal the monster.
-Goethe
(ps. this is not annoyance, this is still in the realm of "interesting"
behavior fo
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:53 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think it would only be fair to trade 2 of our rules for 2 of their
>> rules. Or 1 rule and a pick in next year's Rule Draft.
>
> Just as long as we don't end up with the Beast.
Except for its ability to Devour random rules, th
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is this the first (attempted) transfer of rule text between email nomics?
>> Seems like a momentous occasion.
There was a FRC game where all rules had
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 10:44 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ alleging that
> ais523 violated Rule 2143 by failing to publish a Registrar's Report
> last week (eir last report was published on 1 Sept.)
>
> Recommend COMMUNITY SERVICE forcing em to
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>>I submit a proposal, with the title "Export",
>
> Is this the first (attempted) transfer of rule text between email nomics?
> Seems like a momentous occasion.
I think it would only be fair to trade 2 of our rules
ais523 wrote:
>I submit a proposal, with the title "Export",
Is this the first (attempted) transfer of rule text between email nomics?
Seems like a momentous occasion.
-zefram
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:06 +0100, ehird wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2008, at 14:59, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > I withdraw my intent to appeal, and submit the following proposal:
> > Whereas these rules serve only to further scams,
> > Rules 2192 and 2193 are hereby repealed.
>
> They are used fo
On 9 Oct 2008, at 14:59, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I withdraw my intent to appeal, and submit the following proposal:
Whereas these rules serve only to further scams,
Rules 2192 and 2193 are hereby repealed.
--Wooble
They are used for scams != they are only for scams
--
ehird
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 09:38 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:21 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ah, so you think "may"="CAN" in one rule and "may"="MAY" in the other? I
> > think that interpretation leads to many even worse scams; it would, for
> > instance, allow m
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:21 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, so you think "may"="CAN" in one rule and "may"="MAY" in the other? I
> think that interpretation leads to many even worse scams; it would, for
> instance, allow me to get the Monster to do anything I liked that was
> legal, whe
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 09:17 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:09 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, in other words, the Monster may change the rules, and so I CAN
> > change the rules, but I may not change the rules so R101(i) says I can't
> > change the rules after
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:09 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, in other words, the Monster may change the rules, and so I CAN
> change the rules, but I may not change the rules so R101(i) says I can't
> change the rules after all? I'm not entirely certain I follow that
> logic, or that it
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 14:09 +0100, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 09:06 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:51 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It's an action it "may" take, lowercase "may". Lowercase "may" is also
> > > used in the rule that allows the Mad S
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 09:06 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:51 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's an action it "may" take, lowercase "may". Lowercase "may" is also
> > used in the rule that allows the Mad Scientist to act on behalf of the
> > Monster, so it's a m
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:51 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's an action it "may" take, lowercase "may". Lowercase "may" is also
> used in the rule that allows the Mad Scientist to act on behalf of the
> Monster, so it's a match.
"may" should be taken to mean "permitted", not "able to",
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:48 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would you care to elaborate on that? I get TRUE when applying the logic
> of CFJ 2203.
In CFJ 2203 I ruled that root cast 3 separate conditional votes. In
this case, BobTHJ also cast 5 separate votes, one of which had its
conditi
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 08:45 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:43 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of
> >> the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take, and
>
> > I judge CFJ 2213 TRUE.
>
> I intend, with 2
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 08:39 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I change all sitting players to standing.
> >
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2204
> >
> > == CFJ 2204 ===
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 11:21 +0100, ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 21:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Huh? When did that happen? -G.
>
> I set off another scam, which effectively gave me an AI-1 dictatorship.
See also my judgement of CFJ 2213, and the evidence and arugments I gave
on it,
On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 21:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 4:19 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Here are some recent logs from #really-a-cow: this covers all logs sin
On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 20:49 -0700, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 4:08 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I really hope there are no more huge logs like this.
> >
> > #really-a-cow is no longer a Public Forum, so this really ought to be
> > unnecessary.
>
> Sounds good to me. On the
On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 15:46 -0700, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 5:10 AM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The rules, at least before ais's scam.
>
> Huh? My understanding is that ais523 was not the Registrar, so e could
> not make it a public forum.
>
I am the Registrar.
--
ais523
R
94 matches
Mail list logo
