Um... oops? Did this get done?
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2196a
Appeal 2196a
Panelist: woggle
Decision:
Taral wrote:
Um... oops? Did this get done?
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2196a
Appeal 2196a
woggle intended to REMAND, root has
On 16 Oct 2008, at 15:28, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:35 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, you can't. With the agreement of the other members of
Bayes, I intend to cause Wooble to cease to
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:06 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kyle is hereby defined as a non-registered entity on whose behalf I
can act by announcement. Kyle degregisters.
You're the only such entity. This probably succeeds in establishing
Kyle as a nickname for yourself and binding you to
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:06 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kyle is hereby defined as a non-registered entity on whose behalf I
can act by announcement. Kyle degregisters.
You're the only such entity. This probably
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:58 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I nominate The Law-abiding Partnership, Quazie, and ihope for Assessor.
Quazie and ihope aren't active players; both of their noms fail.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wasn't there a CFJ about this?
CFJ 2177 held that Mr. Elbow was not a nickname for Ivan Hope
because it was defined as a player on whose behalf e could act by
announcement, and there were 2 such players, causing ambiguity. In
this
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:06 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kyle is hereby defined as a non-registered entity on whose behalf I
can act by announcement. Kyle degregisters.
You're the only such entity. This probably
On 16 Oct 2008, at 07:01, Ian Kelly wrote:
There's not enough context here. The fact that RFC 2 was created via
RFC 1 demonstrates that the rules were at least somewhat amendable,
not that they are. Would the initiator please provide the text of RFC
1 and whatever rules were in effect at the
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was referring to the contract stuff, actually. I remember discussion
here about some CFJ regarding contracts that claim that doing
something means you agree to the contract..
I doubt that applies when the doing something is in a
Ed Murphy wrote:
(f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or
the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to
any player who deregistered in a Writ of FAGE.
So everyone who so deregistered now has to have this title awarded again?
And then
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wasn't there a CFJ about this?
CFJ 2177 held that Mr. Elbow was not a nickname for Ivan Hope
because it was defined as a player on whose behalf e could act
Taral wrote:
5765 O 1 1.0 Wooble none
FORx5
Your caste is Delta (2).
Wooble wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tue 7 Oct 22:19:33 oklopol registers (disputed, since ratified).
Tue 7 Oct 23:21:15 the Monster registers (disputed, since ratified).
CoE: neither of these ratified; Ivan Hope was not a Player at the time
e
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is about Ivan Hope publishing a Cantus Cygneus (albeit quoting
BobTHJ's rather than writing eir own), then e doesn't get deregistered
until the CotC carries out eir part of the procedure (which I have not,
and don't
Goethe wrote:
I hereby ban from judging this case the only player with the most
recent registration who is not a member of the alleged contract whose
existence is not confirmed by this message.
I'm interpreting this as referring to the People's Bank of Agora.
Wooble wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is about Ivan Hope publishing a Cantus Cygneus (albeit quoting
BobTHJ's rather than writing eir own), then e doesn't get deregistered
until the CotC carries out eir part of the procedure (which I have
NOTE: These could probably stand to be ordered a little better, and/or
have their scores adjusted before starting. Are there any major gaps I
am missing?
{
1. (Score=5, Owner=null) Any player CAN join this contract by announcement.
2. (Score=5, Owner=null) Any party to this contract CAN act on
4. (Score=5, Owner=null) Thrice each week, each party CAN increment or
decrement the score of a section of this contract by 1.
6. (Score=5, Owner=null) Once each week each party CAN add a new
section to this contract
When a section is added its Owner is set to
the party who directly added
On 16 Oct 2008, at 16:38, Ed Murphy wrote:
Wooble wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tue 7 Oct 22:19:33 oklopol registers (disputed, since ratified).
Tue 7 Oct 23:21:15 the Monster registers (disputed, since
ratified).
CoE: neither of these
BobTHJ wrote:
1. (Score=5, Owner=null) Any player CAN join this contract by announcement.
Score is used by the rules. Granted, for a different set of entities,
but I still recommend changing this to rating or something else.
9. (Score=5, Owner=null) Among equally scored sections, sections
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4. (Score=5, Owner=null) Thrice each week, each party CAN increment or
decrement the score of a section of this contract by 1.
6. (Score=5, Owner=null) Once each week each party CAN add a new
section to this contract
14.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. (Score=5, Owner=null) Any player CAN join this contract by announcement.
This is a little weird in that the effect of nullifying it would be to
allow any person to join (via R2198) instead of any player.
-root
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:16 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4. (Score=5, Owner=null) Thrice each week, each party CAN increment or
decrement the score of a section of this contract by 1.
6. (Score=5, Owner=null) Once
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:16 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4. (Score=5, Owner=null) Thrice each week, each party CAN increment or
decrement the score
root wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:16 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4. (Score=5, Owner=null) Thrice each week, each party CAN increment or
decrement the score of a section of this contract by 1.
6. (Score=5,
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your caste is Delta (2).
Right. Darn it. :/
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ahem, Dvorak?
You don't need eir consent to remove em, do you?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
What are the current RBOA assets/rates?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:25 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So create a section, increment its Score twice, and use it to repeal
all other Sections.
True. Also, a conspiracy of 3 could trivially create a section and
increment its Score all the way to 7.
Probably the best fix is to make
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:58, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What are the current RBOA assets/rates?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
Unofficially:
CHITS (* = Banker)
The AFO
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unofficially:
CHITS (* = Banker)
I assume this doesn't include Murphy's most recently deposit since e's
shown with fewer chits than e would have gained from that one
transaction. Other than that, how up to date is this?
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 13:10, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unofficially:
CHITS (* = Banker)
I assume this doesn't include Murphy's most recently deposit since e's
shown with fewer chits than e would have
BobTHJ wrote:
18. (Rating=4, Owner=null) At the end of each week, the contestmaster
CAN and SHALL award points to each party equal to eir Presence.
This should be As soon as possible after the end of each week, the
contestmaster SHALL award points to each party equal to eir Presence
at the end
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 13:39, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
18. (Rating=4, Owner=null) At the end of each week, the contestmaster
CAN and SHALL award points to each party equal to eir Presence.
This should be As soon as possible after the end of each week, the
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 13:39, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
18. (Rating=4, Owner=null) At the end of each week, the contestmaster
CAN and SHALL award points to each party equal to eir Presence.
This
BobTHJ wrote:
9. (Rating=8, Owner=null) Thrice each week, each party CAN increment
or decrement the Rating of a section of this contract by 1.
There should be a section along the lines of If this contract says
that an action CAN be performed, then the method is by announcement
unless otherwise
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 13:52, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I create a new section reading Murphy CAN make emself the owner of
any section, and other parties SHALL NOT act to change the ownership
of a section that Murphy owns. I increment the rating of this section
by 1, twice.
This
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I create a new section reading Murphy CAN make emself the owner of
any section, and other parties SHALL NOT act to change the ownership
of a section that Murphy owns. I increment the rating of this section
by 1, twice.
This
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I make myself the owner of section 24 (root's section quoted above).
Fails, per section 8.
Actually, this probably succeeded for section 24, but failed for all the others.
-root
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 14:56, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 16 October 2008 02:03:59 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
Unofficially:
CHITS (* = Banker)
Pavitra 4528 Chits
I'm a Banker.
Pavitra
Indeed. I'll fix that.
BobTHJ
On Thursday 16 October 2008 11:21:16 am Ed Murphy wrote:
I object to flipping Nomic 217's Recognition. I will withdraw this
objection if someone points out subsequent RFCs causing Nomic 217
to meet the Agoran definition.
Arguably, RFC 2:
{When interpreting and applying the rules, the general
On 16 Oct 2008, at 22:45, Pavitra wrote:
I deposit one crop each of the digits 1, 4, 8, and 9 with the PBA.
I deposit 1 2 Crop with the RBoA.
I withdraw 1 VP from the RBoA and deposit it with the PBA.
☭ Comrade Pavrita
Thanks! You have 111 coins.
--
ehird
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:08, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:56, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I join Nomic Wars I.
I add the following section to Nomic Wars I:
{
Sections with lower Ratings take precedence over sections with higher
Ratings; Sections of
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:08, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:56, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I join Nomic Wars I.
I add the following section to Nomic Wars I:
{
Sections with lower
Am I still a member of the Bayes Contract?
What do I need to do to leave the Bayes contract?
--
Dvorak Herring
On 17/10/2008, Dvorak Herring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I still a member of the Bayes Contract?
What do I need to do to leave the Bayes contract?
--
Dvorak Herring
Consent to your parting, I think.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do I need to do to leave the Bayes contract?
Consent to your parting, I think.
And Wooble's.
On 17/10/2008, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do I need to do to leave the Bayes contract?
Consent to your parting, I think.
And Wooble's.
After e leaves eir consent is unneeded.
I consent to any member's removal from the Baye's contract, including my
own.
--
Dvorak Herring
50 matches
Mail list logo
