The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
This distribution of proposal 5822 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 players, and the vote collector
is
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 17:47, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The AFO gives me a 0 crop. I PBA-deposit a 0 crop. I PBA-withdraw a
> Point Voucher. I give a Point Voucher to the AFO.
>
The PV withdraw and subsequent transfer fail. All PV were destroyed
when ais523 won.
BobTHJ
On 28/10/2008, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 18:15, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On 28 Oct 2008, at 00:02, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> Good luck getting the proposal to pass, then.
>>
>>
>> You may note that this is a response to the proponents of o
ehird wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2008, at 00:02, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> Good luck getting the proposal to pass, then.
>
>
> You may note that this is a response to the proponents of one person
> recordkeeping all
> the currencies.
Centralizing currency recordkeeping is an entirely different beast
fro
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 18:15, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 28 Oct 2008, at 00:02, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> Good luck getting the proposal to pass, then.
>
>
> You may note that this is a response to the proponents of one person
> recordkeeping all
> the currencies.
>
You don't have
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 17:33, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 23:30 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> On 27 Oct 2008, at 23:27, comex wrote:
>>
>> > I nominate ehird for Accountor.
>>
>> I decline.
>>
> I nominate root for Accountor, on the basis that e's the Conductor an
On 28 Oct 2008, at 00:02, Ed Murphy wrote:
Good luck getting the proposal to pass, then.
You may note that this is a response to the proponents of one person
recordkeeping all
the currencies.
--
ehird
ehird wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2008, at 23:31, comex wrote:
>
>> Can you implement all the roles of all offices in a completely
>> automated system without too much hassle on normal game actions?
>
>
> I will leave the work of thinking about that to the Speaker.
Good luck getting the proposal to pas
On 27 Oct 2008, at 23:31, comex wrote:
Can you implement all the roles of all offices in a completely
automated system without too much hassle on normal game actions?
I will leave the work of thinking about that to the Speaker.
--
ehird
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ais523 can't return the point, so an equitable resolution would be to
> award each other party 1 free point as well. ;-)
No.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal: It's convenient
Can you implement all the roles of all offices in a completely
automated system without too much hassle on normal game actions?
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 17:22 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 17:12, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Elliott Hird
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Also, you have too much power as is.
> >
> > What about a netural third party of some kind? R
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 17:12, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also, you have too much power as is.
>
> What about a netural third party of some kind? Recordkeepors could
> become something more like auditors, verifyin
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> Gratuitous arguments: I identified the contract as the one named UNDEAD.
> If that contract doesn't exist, clearly the intent fails.
If there's one that has that name, but don't know it exists, have you
"clearly" identified it?
If there's more than one t
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 17:07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> ehird, in preparation for an automated system that handles all
>>> economic currencies, would you be willing to transfer recordkeeping
>>> for the PBA to
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, you have too much power as is.
What about a netural third party of some kind? Recordkeepors could
become something more like auditors, verifying that entered
transactions actually match their interpretation of the ema
On 27 Oct 2008, at 23:07, comex wrote:
Oh, my. The main benefits of an automated system are only apparent
when there's one recordkeepor of everything...
I am a fan of decentralization. Besides, I don't see how a batch mail-
submission
imported directly into my program would affect things m
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The PBA, RBoA, AAA, VM, Scorekeepors, and Accountors reports are now
> all in agreement. I just sent the latest AAA report to a-b, though it
> is being held for moderator approval due to size (I once more request
> Taral to b
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ehird, in preparation for an automated system that handles all
>> economic currencies, would you be willing to transfer recordkeeping
>> for the PBA to me?
> I'm going to have to decline. I am quite happy with recordkeeping
On 27 Oct 2008, at 22:57, Roger Hicks wrote:
ehird, in preparation for an automated system that handles all
economic currencies, would you be willing to transfer recordkeeping
for the PBA to me?
I'm going to have to decline. I am quite happy with recordkeeping the
PBA, however, I
would be
Ping. I can still take one more Artist, or two if ehird leaves, to
influence some future distribution.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 5:44 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I join the following contract:
> [Basically, vote FOR*1 on AI=1 proposals in a distribution, and get 5 VP.]
> {
> 1. Before th
The PBA, RBoA, AAA, VM, Scorekeepors, and Accountors reports are now
all in agreement. I just sent the latest AAA report to a-b, though it
is being held for moderator approval due to size (I once more request
Taral to bump the size limit from 40kb to something a little larger,
say 400kb?).
ehird,
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 18:15 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You may need it, but it doesn't mean that you can compel it or that you're
> > going to get it. -Goethe.
>
> Then the CotC is just going to have to assign CFJ 2223.
But t
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You may need it, but it doesn't mean that you can compel it or that you're
> going to get it. -Goethe.
Then the CotC is just going to have to assign CFJ 2223.
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Errata
>> --
>> CFJ 2223 was not initiated because the UNDEAD contract either doesn't
>> exist, or ais523 is not a party to it and it is not a pledge. (TODO:
>> if no evidence of pledg
On 27 Oct 2008, at 22:03, Roger Hicks wrote:
Prior to this the PNP only owned 3 crops, so it appears as if the
entire transaction fails.
OK.
--
ehird
On 27 Oct 2008, at 21:58, comex wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Errata
--
CFJ 2223 was not initiated because the UNDEAD contract either doesn't
exist, or ais523 is not a party to it and it is not a pledge. (TODO:
if no evidence of pledgehood by
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 15:01, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 orde
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 14:49, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5 6 crops [^80]
>
> I deposit 9 1 crops in the PBA. This should net me 126 coins.
> I withdraw 5 6 crops for 105 coins.
>
As previously stated you are onl
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 14:07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 no
On 27 Oct 2008, at 21:36, Roger Hicks wrote:
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 withdraw by comex:
2008-10-27 20:49 -- comex deposits 9 1 crops for ^117. comex withdraws
5 6 crops
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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' poin
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 wi
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:24 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 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
On 27 Oct 2008, at 21:24, 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? I'm not too bothered with
"gamestate
changing" issues, equity is mo
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 w
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
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
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 d
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
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, 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 W
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, 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 sati
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
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 const
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
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 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
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 hav
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 withdr
pba proto-report up to date, bobthj: please read
--
ehird
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
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 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
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
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 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 po
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.
...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
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
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
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
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 wor
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 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, 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
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 publ
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.
>>>
>
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
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 a
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
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 R17
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, 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 fo
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.
BobTHJ..
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 warriga
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 c
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. Tha
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 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
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 man
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 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)?
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 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, 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 p
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
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
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
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
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
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 i
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
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 d
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
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 t
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 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
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
