Warrigal wrote:
>> May I suggest the alternate names Tory and Whig, respectively?
>
> Lovely. I cease agreeing to the Conservative Party and agree to the
> same, with all forms of "Rep" replaced with the corresponding forms of
> "Tory".
Welcome. But why are /you/ claiming Tory status?
Warrigal wrote:
> Reps SHOULD vote keeping in mind that Agora should be taken seriously,
> favoring predictability over chaos and headaches.
> Dem SHOULD vote keeping in mind that Agora is a game, favoring
> spontaneity over stagnation and dullness.
May I suggest the alternate names Tory and Whi
From the Aerican War Law:
It is the goal of the Aerican Empire to avoid conflict. War can and
must be avoided, if possible.
How far can we push the envelope on this to achieve some measure of
recognition between AE and Agora?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
I suggest flipping the Aerican Empire's recognition to Hostile.
I agree. Refuse us recognition? This means WAR!
To War! To War! To war we're going
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>>
>> I suggest flipping the Aerican Empire's recognition to Hostile.
>>
>
> I agree. Refuse us recognition? This means WAR!
To War! To War! To war we're going to go!
On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
I suggest flipping the Aerican Empire's recognition to Hostile.
I agree. Refuse us recognition? This means WAR!
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
Wondering how we could possibly invade them
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I like the general idea, but I think it would work better as one
> contest than as the basis of the entire system.
Well it's kinda interesting if it's a main scoring system (that I thought
we were revamping) but not so much as just another minor contest. -G
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 16:59, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 16:40, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I meant that each contest would be associated with one (or more) of
> >> the defi
On Thursday 06 November 2008 07:16:36 pm Pavitra wrote:
> On Thursday 06 November 2008 10:23:26 am Ed Murphy wrote:
> > 1) You state quite clearly on your site that you are a game which
> > acts like a nation. The Empire, not being a game, does not see
> > how we could recognise you as an equivalen
On Thursday 06 November 2008 10:23:26 am Ed Murphy wrote:
> 1) You state quite clearly on your site that you are a game which
> acts like a nation. The Empire, not being a game, does not see how
> we could recognise you as an equivalent state or nation.
Proto-rebuttal:
The distinction between a
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, e would go to -1 points and stay there. In general, though,
> even small complex scores would inflate way too quickly, e.g.
>
> (S = 0) 2+i -> 3+4i -> -7+24i -> -527-336i
> (S = 1) 2+i -> 4+4i -> 1+32i -> -1022+64i
>
>
root wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I missed that bit when I skimmed the proto. I agree that would
>> inflate too rapidly -- with the current score index, a player with no
>> points would win in four weeks without even doing anything.
>
> Er, "no
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Because requiring an average of 100 points over 3 axes is equivalent
>> to just requiring 300 total points, which is essentially just the
>> current system with a higher target.
>
> We
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Because requiring an average of 100 points over 3 axes is equivalent
> to just requiring 300 total points, which is essentially just the
> current system with a higher target.
Well you can do transformations stuff:
Spacewar!
Each player has a Spaceship w
Goethe wrote:
> One major issue is that there is little precedent on the term "generally"
> that seems to pepper the rules nowadays.
I thought there was a fair (if diffuse) amount of precedent to the
extent that "generally X" means "X, except when something with the
authority to impose a specific
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> In recognition of the recent and mostly-successful export of the
>>> Monster to B Nomic, and in order to further enable trade relations
>>>
root wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In recognition of the recent and mostly-successful export of the
>> Monster to B Nomic, and in order to further enable trade relations
>> with B, the Recognition of B Nomic is hereby flipped to Friendly.
>
> Not u
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I missed that bit when I skimmed the proto. I agree that would
> inflate too rapidly -- with the current score index, a player with no
> points would win in four weeks without even doing anything.
Er, "non-real score". So the
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 16:40, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I meant that each contest would be associated with one (or more) of
>> the defined axes, not that each contest would have its own unique
>> axis.
>>
>
> Not
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 16:25, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 15:28 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I create the following crops in ais523's possession: 9, 1, 0, 4, 7, 7, 0, X
>
> The online AAA report doesn't seem to have recorded the crops on the
> list at the top
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 16:40, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I meant that each contest would be associated with one (or more) of
> the defined axes, not that each contest would have its own unique
> axis.
>
Not to be a spoilsport on the complex numbers thing, but if you are
going to do the
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So perhaps the criterion should be something like, for a
> score of a + bi, a > 0 && b >= 2500/a.
Which can of course be written more prettily as simply a * b >= 2500.
-root
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score
> whose absolute value is at least 100 (specifying all such
> players), all those players satisfy the Winning Condition of
> High Score.
Another
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, should wins i
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Also, should wins in such a system
>>> be based on absolute value, or do players have to win
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> I proto-intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support, because it is
> not Agoran custom to "sandbox" rules like this. Also, eir two
> arguments are in conflict: if one Rule specifically permits someone to
> cause another Rule (which itself is silent) to effect
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also, should wins in such a system
>> be based on absolute value, or do players have to win completely in
>> one axis?
>
> Using absolute value, a win in one axi
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, should wins in such a system
> be based on absolute value, or do players have to win completely in
> one axis?
Using absolute value, a win in one axis requires 100 points in that
axis, but a balanced win in both axes is theore
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 16:22, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/11/6 Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote:
sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b)
>>> This should say sqrt(a*b) =
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For each point axis, the total number of points a contest
>> CAN award in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its
>> members that
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For each point axis, the total number of points a contest
>> CAN award in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its
>> members that
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 15:28 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I create the following crops in ais523's possession: 9, 1, 0, 4, 7, 7, 0, X
The online AAA report doesn't seem to have recorded the crops on the
list at the top, although they're in the recent events section...
--
ais523
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 16:20 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
> 2008/11/6 Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b)
> > This should say sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b).
> > --
> Got it. So then, what is the absolute value of a complex num
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/11/6 Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b)
>> This should say sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b).
>> --
> Got it. So then, what is the absolute value of
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For each point axis, the total number of points a contest
> CAN award in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its
> members that are first-class players. points up to this
> total CAN be awarded
2008/11/6 Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote:
>> sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b)
> This should say sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b).
> --
Got it. So then, what is the absolute value of a complex number?
BobTHJ
Pavitra wrote:
> On Thursday 06 November 2008 12:39:25 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I CFJ on the following statement: A passed proposal CAN flip a
>> switch to a value to which, by rule, the switch CANNOT be flipped.
>
> trivially true, could be power difference
While sufficiently powerful propos
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In recognition of the recent and mostly-successful export of the
> Monster to B Nomic, and in order to further enable trade relations
> with B, the Recognition of B Nomic is hereby flipped to Friendly.
Not until they repeal Agora
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 06 November 2008 12:39:25 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I CFJ on the following statement: A passed proposal CAN flip a
>> switch to a value to which, by rule, the switch CANNOT be flipped.
>
> trivially true, could be po
I wrote:
> Proposal: Expanded foreign relations
Before proceeding further with this effort, I should point out that
I am not Agora's Ambassador (Rule 2148 prohibits false claims on this
topic). That office is currently held by the PerlNomic Partnership,
a legal person whose charter can be viewe
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b)
This should say sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b).
--
ais523
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 16:08 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 15:51, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Proto-Proposal: Complex scoring
> > (AI = 2, please)
> >
> A little help for those of us who haven't looked at imaginary numbers
> since high school. I recall that sqrt(-1
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 15:51, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Complex scoring
> (AI = 2, please)
>
A little help for those of us who haven't looked at imaginary numbers
since high school. I recall that sqrt(-1) = i, but how do you
calculate sqrt(-p)?
BobTHJ
On Thursday 06 November 2008 12:39:25 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I CFJ on the following statement: A passed proposal CAN flip a
> switch to a value to which, by rule, the switch CANNOT be flipped.
trivially true, could be power difference
Proto-Proposal: Complex scoring
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2179 (Points) to read:
For each point axis:
a) Points is a fixed currency.
b) A player's coordinate is the number of points
e owns.
There are two point axes, X and Y. A player's score is x +
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:06 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The PNP supports all current intents to end a filibuster.
Note that this was only sent now for timing reasons. I'd much prefer
if one more real person supported this.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [It's also possible to base this on an existence argument: What is a Rule?
> In the most Platonic basic sense, a Rule is its text. If a Rule's text
> doesn't say it may do something, doing that something is not part of
> its
[H. CotC, I may be a little late in judging this but I intend to later
by tomorrow after comments.]
The caller's argument hinges on the definition of "action", however
there is another consideration.
R2192 says in part "The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of the Monster to
take any action tha
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> There's
> a scam win by points which is still subject to CFJ (CFJ 2213, you're
> assigned to it btw) too.
Oh, you lose. ;P.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 14:30, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2008, at 21:29, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Per the AAA agreement, I attempt to award 4 points to Taral
>
>
> pls to be condensing into single message
>
Planning on it, just haven't had the chance yet. Also plannin
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suggest you cut down the max point limits on contests
Wasn't part of it that we were in Overtime?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 6 Nov 2008, at 21:29, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Per the AAA agreement, I attempt to award 4 points to Taral
pls to be condensing into single message
--
ehird
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 13:22 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I suggest you cut down the max point limits on contests, probably the
> > easiest way. The problem is that until a while back, nobody had won by
> > points for ages, and all the contests doubled or qua
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That doesn't fix the fact that the "scams" I'm talking about are from
> manipulating the contracts themselves, not from "within-legitimate
> contest" points awards. For the latter, I don't begrudge any wins
> certainly. Oh d
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> I suggest you cut down the max point limits on contests, probably the
> easiest way. The problem is that until a while back, nobody had won by
> points for ages, and all the contests doubled or quadrupled their
> scoring, so points are plentiful nowadays. Fo
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> I think what actually happened is that wins by points became a lot more
> common when I started trying for them; presumably, they would have
> become a lot more common if someone else had started trying for them,
> too.
I think after all this time it's not
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 13:43, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2008, at 20:28, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> I resolve the above Bank Motion.
>>
>> APPROVE
>> BobTHJ (2234)
>> Taral (2224)
>>
>> DISAPPROVE
>> none
>>
>> I hereby remove the RBOA's rate for Coins.
>
>
> Umm... So much for
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Winning is too easy right now. It's boring (again IMO).
Temporary setback. Patience is advised. This game has been running for
a lng time.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further troubl
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 13:09 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Winning is too easy right now. It's boring (again IMO).
> >
> > Temporary setback. Patience is advised. This game has been runni
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Winning is too easy right now. It's boring (again IMO).
>
> Temporary setback. Patience is advised. This game has been running for
> a lng time.
Oh I know, but it's run a long time d
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:45 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> It's 1000 points per week...
> >
> > So points reset every week until it's fixed by a proposal. Problem?
>
> Not really. (unless
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> R2124 makes non-first-class players incapable of giving/expressing
>> support. Strangely enough, they can still perform the action, they
>> just can't be supporters of it. -Goethe
>
> There may be cases when non-first-class players need to be able to
> per
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's 1000 points per week...
>
> So points reset every week until it's fixed by a proposal. Problem?
Not really. (unless you're doing all that trading, massive devaluation?)
but we might a
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
>> Upon further reflection, I don't think any of these interpretations
>> fixes anything. The default is "with N first-class player supports".
>> This is "with N Senator supports". Still allo
On 6 Nov 2008, at 20:28, Roger Hicks wrote:
I resolve the above Bank Motion.
APPROVE
BobTHJ (2234)
Taral (2224)
DISAPPROVE
none
I hereby remove the RBOA's rate for Coins.
Umm... So much for that email I sent you.
--
ehird
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There is no more an ambiguity in meaning here than there is when
>> somebody announces "I go on hold" as opposed to "I perform the action
>> 'to go on old'".
>
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
> Upon further reflection, I don't think any of these interpretations
> fixes anything. The default is "with N first-class player supports".
> This is "with N Senator supports". Still allows second-class support.
R2124 makes non-first-class players incapable of gi
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's 1000 points per week...
So points reset every week until it's fixed by a proposal. Problem?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> As for the rules, the rules are the rules, and less flexible than
> contracts.
And this is in those Rules:
(1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of
a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I intend, with 4 supporting senators, to end these filibusters.
>
> Eh, why not? It's just points. I support all of these intents.
It's 1000 points per week.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is no more an ambiguity in meaning here than there is when
> somebody announces "I go on hold" as opposed to "I perform the action
> 'to go on old'".
Upon further reflection, I don't think any of these interpretations
fi
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, the fact it says "with 2 supporting Senators" not "with
> 2 Senate Support" is further evidence that it works that way; "senate
> Support" would have been a much more sensible wording.
"A difference in ... grammar ... is
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:31, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Unless you can give me a reasonable argument for this to be accepted
>> I'm treating it as
>> ineffective for not being clearly specified enough because if I allow
>> unrestricted
>> conditionals that would allow people to condit
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:56, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All times in UTC.
>
> Last update: 2008-11-06 19:55
>
My PBA report is now in sync with yours.
BobTHJ
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:11 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > My point is: the filibuster rule is not a dependent action, according to
> > rule 1728. Therefore, if it works at all, it works due to the ordinary
> > English meaning of what it says. "with 2 supporti
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My point is: the filibuster rule is not a dependent action, according to
> rule 1728. Therefore, if it works at all, it works due to the ordinary
> English meaning of what it says. "with 2 supporting Senators" is with 2
> supp
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> My point is: the filibuster rule is not a dependent action, according to
> rule 1728. Therefore, if it works at all, it works due to the ordinary
> English meaning of what it says. "with 2 supporting Senators" is with 2
> supporting Senators, no firstclassne
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:31 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> And with necessary support, I filibuster 5842-5941.
>> >>
>> > I intend, with 4 supporting sen
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:54, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:52 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I agree to the following pledge/contract if ehird also does:
>> {
>> 1. The name of this pledge / contract is the InterBank Reconciliation
>> Agreement
>>
>> 2. Upon the i
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:52 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I agree to the following pledge/contract if ehird also does:
> {
> 1. The name of this pledge / contract is the InterBank Reconciliation
> Agreement
>
> 2. Upon the inception of this agreement, BobTHJ SHALL modify eir PBA
> report to reflect
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 19:44 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:40 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:31 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:40 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:31 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> And with necessary support, I fili
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:31 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> And with necessary support, I filibuster 5842-5941.
> >>
> > I intend, with 4 supporting senators, to end these filibusters.
>
> I post the following Sell Ticket:
>
>
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AGAINST, very much so. There are probably private pledges that existed
> decades ago which I've never seen, that were published, and never
> technically ended. This would force me to track them.
Pledges have only existed sinc
Proto: Failing transactions that are not noticed quickly enough still
affect rates &
coin count, but you SHALL NOT do them.
--
ehird
BobTHJ wrote:
> 1. We need a unified gamestate, and we honestly can't afford to wait
> for a four-day without objection ratification process to complete. We
> need to decide on something and sync things up today, then ratify
> that.
Proto-proto: Velocity is a contract switch, tracked by the Nota
ehird wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:01, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> For the purpose of this message, to flip a Credit is to perform
>> the following actions if and only if it would result in a net
>> increase in my Coin holdings:
>>
>> 1) RBoA-withdraw a Credit of that pitch
>> 2) PBA-deposit that
On 6 Nov 2008, at 18:14, Taral wrote:
Did you?
Y- no.
--
ehird
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:00 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I transfer 5VP to Taral
>
> You too, Taral.
Bah, hardly. I have significant investments at stake.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2008, at 01:13, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
>> I object to all dependent actions that were buried in comex's message
>> titled "sheer cruelty (and lots of points)".
>
>
> There are none, as far as I can tell.
Same here. I r
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shoulda used Prolog.
Did you?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) You state quite clearly on your site that you are a game which acts
> like a nation. The Empire, not being a game, does not see how we could
> recognise you as an equivalent state or nation.
Not a game? Could have fooled me.
On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 20:43 -0500, Warrigal wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:58 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On
> > behalf of Registrar ais523: ais523 publishes this Cantus Cygneus: {NO!
> > What is this? Who am I? A useless partnership, formed only as a
> > bribe. Why did you submit
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:38, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:18, Elliott Hird wrote:
>
>> Here I was thinking automated systems are good because they can handle
>> knock-on effects.
>> It's why I wrote mine, after all.
>
>
> Worth noting: It's not even a change of po
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:09, Elliott Hird wrote:
Unless you can give me a reasonable argument for this to be
accepted I'm treating it as
ineffective for not being clearly specified enough because if I
allow unrestricted
conditionals that would allow people to condition on turing
complete or und
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:18, Elliott Hird wrote:
Here I was thinking automated systems are good because they can
handle knock-on effects.
It's why I wrote mine, after all.
Worth noting: It's not even a change of policy. It's just the fixing
of a bug that would
have given Wooble something e c
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:18, Roger Hicks wrote:
I'm in agreement. This is a pain to work out from an automation
perspective.
Shoulda used Prolog.
--
ehird
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:15, Roger Hicks wrote:
The AAA has treated this withdraw as a success since 10/22, so for
you to change it
now would require a complete re-calculation of the AAA, and
subsequently the RBOA, and
subsequently Vote Market, PRS, Note Exchange, etc.
Here I was thinking aut
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:09, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:01, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> For the purpose of this message, to flip a Credit is to perform
>> the following actions if and only if it would result in a net
>> increase in my Coin holdings:
>>
>> 1) RBoA-wit
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:06, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2008, at 16:21, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> A contract should be able to ratify its own internal gamestate using
>> whatever method it desires. However, if you think you can fix whatever
>> bug is causing this issue then I
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
