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
condition
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 match.
may
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 Scientist to act
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 makes
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 all?
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, whether possible
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 me to get the
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Rules 2192 and 2193 are hereby repealed.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 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 for scams
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, 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 for 2 of
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 10:47 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 to be
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, the Beast
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 for
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 harvest
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 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
I judge CFJ
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
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 Goethe
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 me. On the
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 use
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.
Sure it does.
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 that
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
can use
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
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 appeal the judgment
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 judgement
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 this
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 which point
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.
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.)
Recommend
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-numbering of CFJ
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'd withdrawn
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 amended
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 scam
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 week.
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
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 it.
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 were at
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
the scam
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 crops in root's
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 ais523
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
paragraph the text:
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 2179 to power 2,
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 why it
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), where
(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
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. I
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 amended rule, for
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 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, 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 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 Sense of Agora
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
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.
test
--
ehird
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
difference.
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 keep
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
difference.
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 unambiguously described.
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't move to stop
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
Ratified Report
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) that it
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 much
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 described. Quite
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, 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 everything
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
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, 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, 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 google or
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
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
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 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 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 the definitions
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 consent of
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 Good Thing
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 10:01 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 initiate an
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).
82 matches
Mail list logo
