On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if this note was added to the text of the Rule itself?
>
> Note: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions;
> this was established by CFJ 24.
>
> Exactly the same text would serve in a Rule to create th
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 9:42 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Wooble, I inform you of the following criminal case and invite you to
>> rebut the argument for your guilt:
>>
>> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/v
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The actual verbiage is "...the Rulekeepor CAN cause it to amend itself
> by adding a historical annotation...". At best, this is
> self-contradictory. The word "amend" implies that the text is
> changed; the word "annotation"
Elysion wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:03:20 -0800
> Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> root wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:30 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to make Proposals 5956 and 5962 democratic.
>>> I support. With 2 support, I mak
comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Elysion wrote:
>>
>>> Oh irony, thy name is Agora.
>> That one was not accidental.
>
> So, do we have an Annabel situation if BobTHJ's reregistration after
> eir Cantus Cygneus never happened?
No, because the
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only argument I can see around that is to argue that a substantially and
> deliberately incorrect attempted resolution fails to satisfy 208(c), and thus
> the Agoran decisions on proposals 5956 and 5962 have not been
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2008, at 00:19, Joshua Boehme wrote:
>
>> Annotations != rules. The rules require the Rulekeepor to track
>> annotations and encourage em to do so, but it gives no particular legal
>> force to the annotations so tr
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:03:20 -0800
Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:30 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I intend, with 2 support, to make Proposals 5956 and 5962 democratic.
> >
> > I support. With 2 support, I make Proposals 5956 a
On 19 Nov 2008, at 00:19, Joshua Boehme wrote:
Annotations != rules. The rules require the Rulekeepor to track
annotations and encourage em to do so, but it gives no particular
legal force to the annotations so tracked.
But he can APPEND a historical annotation to a RULE'S TEXT.
-> It beco
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:31:06 -0800
Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> Rule 869 states in part:
>
> A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register
> within thirty days after doing so.
>
> The question is, does the "so" in the second sentence r
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Elysion wrote:
>
>> Oh irony, thy name is Agora.
>
> That one was not accidental.
So, do we have an Annabel situation if BobTHJ's reregistration after
eir Cantus Cygneus never happened?
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:41:11 -0500
comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical
> annotation:
> {
> Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
> cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
> }
Annotations !=
On 19 Nov 2008, at 00:05, Ed Murphy wrote:
That one was not accidental.
Hahahahahaha
Elysion wrote:
> Oh irony, thy name is Agora.
That one was not accidental.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:31:06 -0800
Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> == CFJ 2271 ==
>
> None of the attempted registrations (P1 through P100) in comex's
> quoted message were succesful.
>
> ===
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:21:06 -0800
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why make it different than 30-days due to normal deregistration? Facing
> > this, I'd personally just write an equally pissed-off letter followed by
>
On 18 Nov 2008, at 23:09, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
This would lead to deliberately driving down the rate to sell them
cheaply first.
On the other hand, the RBoA's rates are almost always wrong, it keeps
being scammed, etc.
Lesser of two evils.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2008, at 21:27, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> Gratuitous argument: it would be equitable to require the
>> above-mentioned parties to purchase vote points from the other parties
>> at the current RBoA rate.
>
> Argume
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I nominate myself as Rulekeepor.
>
> I nominate myself as Rulekeepor.
>
> I don't like to abuse positions of trust, but if my scam-annotation
> works, it works only because of powers g
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 16:20 -0500, comex wrote:
> Of course you might complain that I don't annotate the Ruleset with
> CFJs. Which is fair-- if someone has the spare time to, let them hold
> the office...
R2166: CFJ 1911: This rule does not allow the creation of persons by
announcement.
R2215: C
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>ehird, comex, Quazie, and myself have failed to meet their
>>obligations per section 10 of the Vote Market agreement.
>
> Gratuitous argument
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 16:27 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >ehird, comex, Quazie, and myself have failed to meet their
> >obligations per section 10 of the Vote Market agreement.
>
> Gratuitous argument: it would be e
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>ehird, comex, Quazie, and myself have failed to meet their
>obligations per section 10 of the Vote Market agreement.
Gratuitous argument: it would be equitable to require the
above-mentioned parties to purchase vote po
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why make it different than 30-days due to normal deregistration? Facing
> this, I'd personally just write an equally pissed-off letter followed by
> "this is not a Cantus Cygnus, I deregister." The point of Writ of FAGE
> i
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical
>> annotation:
>> {
>> Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
>> cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
>> I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical
>> annotation:
>> {
>> Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
>> cause this rule to amend
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 07:16, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I PBA-deposit an 8 crop.
> I PBA-withdraw a 1 crop.
>
> I harvest 107, an amended power-3 rule, for 8 crops.
> I harvest 955, an amended power-3 rule, for 8 crops.
> I harvest 1728, an amended power-3 rule, for 8 crops. [usi
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5972 D 1 2.0 rootContract terminology clean-up
> FOR
>> 5973 D 1 2.0 woggle Highly Limited Partnerships
> FOR, but needs a fix (see below)
>> 5974 D 0 2.0 Murphy I can has grammar
> FO
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal: Fix Highly Limited Partnerships
> (AI = 2, II = 0, please)
>
> Amend Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora) by replacing "second-class"
> with "non-first-class".
How is this an improvement?
-root
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>> 5977 D 1 2.0 Elysion Shoot Them All and Sort it Out Later
>
> This may very well bring back ungoverned "natural" partnerships,
> which were after all int
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> 5977 D 1 2.0 Elysion Shoot Them All and Sort it Out Later
This may very well bring back ungoverned "natural" partnerships,
which were after all introduced by CFJ where the rules were silent.
-G.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2008, at 16:41, Zefram wrote:
>> Not in general, no. That judgement is only that Agoran rules have
>> infinite scope.
>
> Well that's very fair to other nomics ... perhaps we should platonically
> declare that all nomics are Protectorates?
Ref
ais523 wrote:
>>> * There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which the
>>> person was aware of or could easily have found out that an
>>> attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made,
>>> and could have ceased to agree to the document in question
>
Elliott Hird wrote:
>perhaps we should platonically
>declare that all nomics are Protectorates?
We could, but it doesn't seem very useful.
>Nothing in the laws of physics gives effect to the rules of Agora.
Agora doesn't need the approval of the laws of physics. Agora is sovereign.
-zefram
On 18 Nov 2008, at 16:41, Zefram wrote:
Elliott Hird wrote:
Therefore, Agora acknowledges that a nomic ruleset can have a
jurisdiction
larger than the domain of the game it defines the rules for.
Not in general, no. That judgement is only that Agoran rules have
infinite scope.
Well that's
Elliott Hird wrote:
>Therefore, Agora acknowledges that a nomic ruleset can have a
>jurisdiction
>larger than the domain of the game it defines the rules for.
Not in general, no. That judgement is only that Agoran rules have
infinite scope.
>So, I'm starting a new game of nomic! Here are the r
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Joshua Boehme wrote:
> A player who has deregistered in a Writ of FAGE may not register
> within ninety days of eir deregistration, other rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding.
Why make it different than 30-days due to normal deregistration? Facing
this, I'd
Pavitra wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> > calculated. A contract's Spirit can be Legal, Equitable, or both
> > (but must be at least one of Legal or Equitable); other rules
> A contract's Spirit can be Legal, Equitable, or Dual.
I thought of that. May as well.
> > The only appropriate sentence in a questi
38 matches
Mail list logo
