I'm about to assign judges to some judicial cases. To start being
assigned as a judge, you should announce that you become sitting (for
B players, this is the equivalent of gaining the Ordained property).
There is no penalty for failing to judge, nor for making an incorrect
judgement in good
Also, what about Bayes? Arguably also the PNP acts slightly like that;
although it can be controlled democratically, it also does some things
in an automated way.
--
ais523 from Normish, probably this message will never arive as a result
On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 18:31 -0400, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Oct 25, 2008, at 1:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I spend E G# B to increase ehird's caste to Delta, unless this would
violate the Note Exchange agreement. (I don't think it does, but
this
is from memory.)
Also,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:08 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no penalty for failing to judge,
Other than a possible criminal case for violating a SHALL?
On 27 Oct 2008, at 03:56, Ian Kelly wrote:
Ironic.
Oh? Not very.
Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine.
Messing them up via proposal is not.
--
ehird
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
== CFJ 2238 ==
When a person performs an action that takes parameters, e must
unambiguously specify the parameters.
I proto-judge TRUE. When taking an action,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27 Oct 2008, at 13:10, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
For practical reasons, such announcements SHOULD be avoided to
prevent cascading of
unknown-at-the-moment-but-platonically-unambiguous gamestate.
tell that to comex
On 27 Oct 2008, at 13:34, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
comex: you shouldn't purposely make things difficult for the
recordkeepors of badly-designed banks.
The RBoA has exactly the same problem, except BobTHJ controls almost
every currency it
trades in anyway.
--
ehird
On 27 Oct 2008, at 13:10, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
For practical reasons, such announcements SHOULD be avoided to
prevent cascading of
unknown-at-the-moment-but-platonically-unambiguous gamestate.
tell that to comex
--
ehird
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I initiate an equity case against The Agoran Agricultural Association,
specifying its list of parties as {{BobTHJ, Murphy, Wooble, comex, root,
Taral, OscarMeyr, the AFO, Quazie, Pavitra, ais523, Teh Cltohed Mna,
woggle,
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 10:04 -0400, comex wrote:
Note that I've already been well punished, losing 14 VP from that
transaction, which is well-defined (the last VM report was a few days
ago); there's no way that my holdings of any other asset is up to the
exchange rate so the deposit-withdraw is
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex: you shouldn't purposely make things difficult for the
recordkeepors of badly-designed banks.
Well, I suppose BobTHJ is the recordkeepor of the RBoA, but I don't
see what that has to do with anything. g
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this case, any announcement that identifies the player,
regardless of whether it does so by name, necessarily unambiguously
specifies em; that the meaning of identify. I statement of the form
I award a Bean to Wooble
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The RBoA has exactly the same problem, except BobTHJ controls almost every
currency it
trades in anyway.
I think there's just a fundamental problem trading assets with
different recordkeepors. I repeat that automation
On 27 Oct 2008, at 14:28, comex wrote:
I think there's just a fundamental problem trading assets with
different recordkeepors. I repeat that automation would be nice-- one
entity could effectively recordkeep all assets anyone cared to make,
removing the current constraints on the asset system.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proto: Agora becomes a codenomic.
Proto: PNP becomes the Accountor, someone besides me writes the code
to make that work, and all contracts are amended to remove the
recordkeepors of the assets they define.
On 27 Oct 2008, at 14:33, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Proto: PNP becomes the Accountor, someone besides me writes the code
to make that work, and all contracts are amended to remove the
recordkeepors of the assets they define.
Proto: Agora absorbs PerlNomic.
--
ehird
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
5798 D 1 3.0 Goethe Toughen Ratifiation
AGAINST. Without objection and with support is not a defined method
of dependent actions.
'Without objection' is defined.
'with support' is defined.
'and' is defined.
So why doesn't this work? (not
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
I intend to send the following on behalf of the judicial panel in CFJ
2203a, with the support of two of {woggle, Goethe, the CotC}:
{{{
This panel REMANDs CFJ 2203. The judge is instructed to consider whether
there were two plausible interpretations of
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 09:19 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
I intend to send the following on behalf of the judicial panel in CFJ
2203a, with the support of two of {woggle, Goethe, the CotC}:
{{{
This panel REMANDs CFJ 2203. The judge is instructed to
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 13:47, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24 Oct 2008, at 20:26, Roger Hicks wrote:
NOTE: After this withdraw I show the RBoA having 260 coins remaining.
The PBA would seem to have a different figure. What's the difference?
I dunno. I don't have your recent
On 27 Oct 2008, at 16:31, Roger Hicks wrote:
The total amount of coins ais523 deposited during the Bank Run was
551, not 719.
Incorrect. That was how much I thought. My program says otherwise.
2008-10-20 19:39 -- RBoA transfers ^275 to root.
This was 250 coins, not 275.
Nope. Again, I
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 16:35 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 27 Oct 2008, at 16:31, Roger Hicks wrote:
The total amount of coins ais523 deposited during the Bank Run was
551, not 719.
Incorrect. That was how much I thought. My program says otherwise.
(snip)
I imagine your count is
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:35, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27 Oct 2008, at 16:31, Roger Hicks wrote:
The total amount of coins ais523 deposited during the Bank Run was 551,
not 719.
Incorrect. That was how much I thought. My program says otherwise.
2008-10-20 19:39 -- RBoA
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:54 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, arguably a sender from Normish can be faked too, but I
have to be able to participate somehow; apparently the building in
which the email server that stores my email is housed was flooded
by leaking pipes, and my email
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:34, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I initiate the following Bank Motion:
{
The RBoA agrees to the Portfolio Management Agreement.
}
Disapprove. There's absolutely no good reason for
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves
to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score of at least 100.
Therefore, by rule 2187, I satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score;
I do not satisfy any Losing Conditions,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2237
== CFJ 2237 ==
Warrigal is party to a public contract called the UNDAD
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27 Oct 2008, at 03:56, Ian Kelly wrote:
Ironic.
Oh? Not very.
Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine.
Messing them up via proposal is not.
Why? The whole point of making an R1728
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5799 D 1 2.0 comex Fix Rule 1789
AGAINST. Didn't we already adopt this?
Its voting period was extended due to lack of quorum. I vote FOR.
What I
On 27 Oct 2008, at 17:06, Ian Kelly wrote:
Why? The whole point of making an R1728 contract is to let the
contract be governed by Agora. Messing with things by proposal is a
long tradition in Agora.
It'd help if this were actually interesting. Even comex doesn't
approve eir own
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird
Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine.
Messing them up via proposal is not.
Why? The whole point of making an R1728 contract is to let the
contract be governed by Agora.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:04, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I note that if BobTHJ had fulfilled eir contract-defined duties on
time, ehird would have been able to easily figure this out.
I note that if I didn't have to
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's
still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though
I'd like to kill that annoying PRS first). -G.
What's so annoying about the PRS?
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:13, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:04, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I note that if BobTHJ had fulfilled eir contract-defined duties on
time, ehird would have been able
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's so annoying about the PRS?
Personally I think it should have been a Rule.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:13 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is an excellent reason to uphold the specific precedent and
make such crazy transactions much more difficult.
Personally I think CFJ 1307 was wrongly decided. It hinges on the M-W
dictionary using only explicitly in the
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27 Oct 2008, at 14:33, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Proto: PNP becomes the Accountor, someone besides me writes the code
to make that work, and all contracts are amended to remove the
recordkeepors of the assets they define.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
5798 D 1 3.0 Goethe Toughen Ratifiation
AGAINST. Without objection and with support is not a defined method
of dependent actions.
'Without objection' is defined.
'with
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:33, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proto: Agora becomes a codenomic.
Proto: PNP becomes the Accountor, someone besides me writes the code
to make that work, and all contracts are
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's
still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though
I'd like to kill that annoying PRS first). -G.
Yes, messing with contracts is
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27 Oct 2008, at 17:06, Ian Kelly wrote:
Why? The whole point of making an R1728 contract is to let the
contract be governed by Agora. Messing with things by proposal is a
long tradition in Agora.
It'd help if this
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This compound method isn't one of the methods listed in R1728(a). The
paragraph does say at least one of the following methods, but I
think that just means that the rules can define multiple methods for
performing the same
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's
still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though
I'd like to kill that annoying PRS first).
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
This compound method isn't one of the methods listed in R1728(a). The
paragraph does say at least one of the following methods, but I
think that just means that the rules can define multiple methods for
performing the same dependent action, not that an
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's
still too annoying, you could propose a bump up to power-3. (Though
I'd like to kill that annoying PRS first).
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:43, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:11, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is annoying, which is why we put it up to power-2 protected. If it's
still too annoying, you could propose a bump
On 27 Oct 2008, at 17:48, Roger Hicks wrote:
Just to clarify: I really don't want to see the demise of the PBA by
proposal.
Then vote against the mental health act.
--
ehird
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
Yet my proposed changes to the PRS to limit its economic point-trading
abuse potential were shot down.
That doesn't help. You made those as within-contest change attempts
while you elevated to contest based on Proposal, so are using different
standards.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:52, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27 Oct 2008, at 17:48, Roger Hicks wrote:
Just to clarify: I really don't want to see the demise of the PBA by
proposal.
Then vote against the mental health act.
I thought it had no effect? (due to Power)?
BobTHJ
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 19:17, warrigal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:27 PM, warrigal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, without objection, to terminate the Llama Party. It's clearly
unfair on BobTHJ to
On 27 Oct 2008, at 16:44, Roger Hicks wrote:
2008-10-20 19:39 -- RBoA transfers ^275 to root.
root clearly specifies in eir e-mail that e is withdrawing 250 coins.
I believe I have 4337 chits. I withdraw 394 coins for 4334 chits; if
I have fewer chits than 4334, then I withdraw as many
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 12:03 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:52, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27 Oct 2008, at 17:48, Roger Hicks wrote:
Then vote against the mental health act.
I thought it had no effect? (due to Power)?
It can't modify contracts, but it can
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 16:11, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I deposit all of my non-fixed assets which have an exchange rate into the PBA.
Comex had the following assets at the time of this message:
25VP
CROPS VOUCHERS
FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 16:40, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I withdrew ^250 from the RBoA, withdrew 2 1-crops for ^23, withdrew 6
VP for ^63, deposited several note credits for ^168, withdrew 2
5-crops for ^39, withdrew 7 1-crops for ^112, and finally withdrew a
2-crop for ^27. That
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
This compound method isn't one of the methods listed in R1728(a). The
paragraph does say at least one of the following methods, but I
think that just means that the rules can define
On 27 Oct 2008, at 18:17, Roger Hicks wrote:
ehird, this is the message of root's I am referring to.
OK. Will process
On 27 Oct 2008, at 01:34, warrigal wrote:
I do this 30 times: if I have more than 50 VP, I deposit 1 VP for at
least 15 coins.
bobthj, please tell me how many vp
On 22 Oct 2008, at 23:40, Ian Kelly wrote:
I withdrew ^250 from the RBoA, withdrew 2 1-crops for ^23, withdrew 6
VP for ^63, deposited several note credits for ^168, withdrew 2
5-crops for ^39, withdrew 7 1-crops for ^112, and finally withdrew a
2-crop for ^27. That adds up to ^154.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:23, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22 Oct 2008, at 23:40, Ian Kelly wrote:
I withdrew ^250 from the RBoA, withdrew 2 1-crops for ^23, withdrew 6
VP for ^63, deposited several note credits for ^168, withdrew 2
5-crops for ^39, withdrew 7 1-crops for ^112,
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
I agree that it's perfectly clear what's intended. But R1728 isn't
looking for extension, it's looking for one of those three method
schemata, period, and if the method doesn't match, then R1728 doesn't
apply to it. Since R1728 is the only rule that
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 11:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
I agree that it's perfectly clear what's intended. But R1728 isn't
looking for extension, it's looking for one of those three method
schemata, period, and if the method doesn't match, then R1728
On 27 Oct 2008, at 18:26, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:23, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22 Oct 2008, at 23:40, Ian Kelly wrote:
I withdrew ^250 from the RBoA, withdrew 2 1-crops for ^23,
withdrew 6
VP for ^63, deposited several note credits for ^168, withdrew 2
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine.
Messing them up via proposal is not.
Why? The whole point of making an R1728
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
I agree that it's perfectly clear what's intended. But R1728 isn't
looking for extension, it's looking for one of those three method
schemata, period, and if the method doesn't match,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:50 PM, warrigal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine.
Messing them up
So there is no interest in this? What if it were based upon a different game?
-root
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following is a proto-contest. Kudos to the Werewolves of Agora
Nomic contest for providing templating.
1a) The name of this public
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 13:13, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So there is no interest in this? What if it were based upon a different game?
Sounds interesting to me initially (though I haven't yet read the
rules of the board game).
BobTHJ
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to clarify: I really don't want to see the demise of the PBA by
proposal. This was intended to be part of a scam that I later realized
wouldn't work (and in truth had little to do with the PBA).
What was it?
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
with:
The total number of points a player MAY award in a given week
is equal to 5 times the number of first-class players who are
members of contracts for which e is contestmaster. Points up to
this total CAN be awarded by a
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 13:29, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to clarify: I really don't want to see the demise of the PBA by
proposal. This was intended to be part of a scam that I later realized
wouldn't work (and in
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I publish official report X, which if ratified would make me dictator.
I intend to (ratify X without objection), with support.
I cause Player B, on whose behalf I can act, to support this.
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 19:34, warrigal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 9:03 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 6:11 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I deposit all of my non-fixed assets which have an exchange rate into the
PBA.
I withdraw all
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:28 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But there's no reason R1728 shouldn't support
with-support-without-objection generally. (Goethe, was it intended
to?)
Proposal: Allow multiple methods (AI=2)
Amend Rule 1728 by replacing method in item b) with methods.
That's
...pba.py was _awarding_ people for deposits.
Feel free to kill me. New report pushed. comex is less of a crazily-
rich person and
such. BobTHJ: you want to read it.
--
ehird
BobTHJ wrote:
I leave the Llama Party.
With only Warrigal as a party, it thus dissolves.
This probably invalidates your votes of SLAMA(2VP) on 5803-05
and LLAMA(F) on 5806.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:41, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Processed, new proto-PBA report online. Is it correct? Does the RBoA still
have too
many coins? is the comex stuff right?
comex seems to have way too many coins after buying all eir assets
back (1468?). Since Warrigal
BobTHJ wrote:
Just to clarify: I really don't want to see the demise of the PBA by
proposal. This was intended to be part of a scam that I later realized
wouldn't work (and in truth had little to do with the PBA).
And what scam was that, then?
On 27 Oct 2008, at 19:54, Roger Hicks wrote:
comex seems to have way too many coins after buying all eir assets
back (1468?). Since Warrigal potentially deposited as many as 23 VP in
the PBA (a transaction that is missing from your report) prior to
comex's withdrawing as many as possible, it is
On 27 Oct 2008, at 19:56, Ed Murphy wrote:
And what scam was that, then?
He says he's going to try it again, so I doubt he'll tell you.
--
ehird
comex wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:08 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no penalty for failing to judge,
Other than a possible criminal case for violating a SHALL?
Sorry, you're right; you have a week to either judge (earning a Note
with which you can eventually buy extra
BobTHJ wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:04, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I note that if BobTHJ had fulfilled eir contract-defined duties on
time, ehird would have been able to easily figure this out.
I note that if I didn't have to spend several hours each day sorting
out crazy
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 06:34, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I PBA-withdraw:
four 3 crops, I think this costs ^34;
three 7 crops, I think this costs ^24;
a 4 crop, I think this costs ^6.
Due to the failure of some of these (I missed this in my recordkeeping)...
I mill 3*7=X and 3*7=X,
pba proto-report up to date, bobthj: please read
--
ehird
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:51, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I PBA-withdraw two 0 crops for ^3+^4 = ^7.
I RBoA-deposit two 0 crops for 25*2=50 Chits.
I PBA-withdraw 8 Coins for 48 Chits.
--
ehird, we have some trouble with the above transaction. You claim
ais523 was unable to withdraw
On 27 Oct 2008, at 20:25, Roger Hicks wrote:
ehird, we have some trouble with the above transaction. You claim
ais523 was unable to withdraw any 0 crops because e didn't have enough
coins. If that is the case then e didn't have any 0 crops to deposit
into the RBoA, and as a result would only
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 15:52, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I PBA-withdraw 2 4 crop.
I PBA-withdraw 2 7 crops.
I missed these, and therefore goofed up this transaction.
I mill 4 * 8 = X.
I mill 4 / 7 = X.
I mill 4 / 7 = X.
I mill 3 - 4 = X.
I mill 3 + 7 = X.
So this last
On 27 Oct 2008, at 20:30, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
And a 4 crop. I think this leaves me with 1 coin, which I transfer
to the PNP.
It leaves you with 25, now 24 coins.
--
ehird
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I initiate an equity case regarding the PRS, whose parties are ehird,
BobTHJ, comex, Murphy, Quazie, Wooble, Pavitra, ais523, and root.
ais523 should only have gotten 1 point from the above cashout since e
only had 1 PV. He
ehird wrote:
On 27 Oct 2008, at 14:28, comex wrote:
I think there's just a fundamental problem trading assets with
different recordkeepors. I repeat that automation would be nice-- one
entity could effectively recordkeep all assets anyone cared to make,
removing the current constraints on
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Murphy: uuduuuduuddududududuudu
I award Murphy 4 points.
Wooble: uudududu
I award Murphy 4 points.
I think you just awarded Murphy 8 points and Wooble 0.
-root
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:52, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves
to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score of at least 100.
Therefore, by rule 2187, I satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score;
I do not satisfy
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 13:58 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
The PNP withdraws one 1 crop from the PBA for ^9.
The PNP withdraws one 1 crop from the PBA for ^10.
Using the Mill with the first name in alphabetical order out of eir
non-In Production Addition Mills, the PNP mills 1 + 1 =
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:52, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves
to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score of at least 100.
Therefore, by rule 2187, I satisfy the Winning
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 13:59, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I transfer one 0 crop to the AFO.
Fails, you have none.
The AFO transfers one 0 crop to the PBA.
Still works.
BobTHJ
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 15:07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:52, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves
to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score
On 27 Oct 2008, at 20:58, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
The PNP withdraws one 1 crop from the PBA for ^9.
The PNP withdraws one 1 crop from the PBA for ^10.
Using the Mill with the first name in alphabetical order out of eir
non-In Production Addition Mills, the PNP mills 1 + 1 = 2.
The PNP
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:52, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves
to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score of at least
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
As is, I don't think there's a lot that can be done. The PRS was acting
not-in-accordance-with-expectations due to a mistake, so that can be
solved equitably, but the gamestate will have changed a lot
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I agree that criminal proceedings aren't reasonable, I'm more thinking of
the equity; what is an equitable solution to making a mistake that
resets all other members' points?
ps. Maybe equity would be me putting a big word ILLEGAL next to the win
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 18:02, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I join the PBA.
I PBA-deposit all my 6 crops (I think this gets me ^156).
I missed this deposit the first time around (sorry ehird!). Murphy
only had seven 7 crops to deposit, not 8. This effects the following
subsequent PBA
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
