On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
It's because the Intent is, in fact, in the words of R1769, simply
required before the dependent action attempt. The fact that it is
required 4 days before means that it's also required 3 days before,
2 days before,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:44 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree... if you require that an action be done four days earlier
than X, you are not requiring that it be done prior to X, but prior
to (four days before X). If I advise you, new to the Agoran ruleset,
that you have to
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, comex wrote:
I disagree... if you require that an action be done four days earlier
than X, you are not requiring that it be done prior to X, but prior
to (four days before X). If I advise you, new to the Agoran ruleset,
that you have to resolve dependent actions earlier
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Mine is semantically and logically 100% accurate, in that the CFJ
statement a Notice of Intent is required to be posted before the time
a matching w/o Objection action is performed would be judged TRUE based
on R1728.
comex wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Mine is semantically and logically 100% accurate, in that the CFJ
statement a Notice of Intent is required to be posted before the time
a matching w/o Objection action is performed would be judged TRUE
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Second, Taral delivered null judgement on the grounds that accusing
Warrigal of lying should be done via criminal case, but I believe the
intent of this case was to explore the following issue (which Taral did
not
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, comex wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Mine is semantically and logically 100% accurate, in that the CFJ
statement a Notice of Intent is required to be posted before the time
a matching w/o Objection action is performed
2008/12/29, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
Weekly gains (Mon 29 Dec)
-
weekly duties:
Sgeo (Notary)
I'm the Notary, and what about the Holiday? Can you still award notes during
the holiday?
--
w1n5t0n aka
Charles Schaefer
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Charles Schaefer
chuckles11...@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/29, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
Weekly gains (Mon 29 Dec)
-
weekly duties:
Sgeo (Notary)
I'm the Notary, and what about the Holiday? Can you still award
2008/12/29, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com:
I degregister.
Just to make sure, you might want to spell it correctly.
I don't know why you're leaving Agora too.
--
w1n5t0n aka
Charles Schaefer
On 29 Dec 2008, at 22:56, Charles Schaefer wrote:
Just to make sure, you might want to spell it correctly.
Hehehehehehehe...
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 14:56 -0800, Charles Schaefer wrote:
2008/12/29, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com:
I degregister.
Just to make sure, you might want to spell it correctly.
I don't know why you're leaving Agora too.
This actually is a reminder of a recent scam at
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
It's
ambiguous whether deregistration or degregistration was meant, so
the last paragraph of Rule 2197 prevents it from having any effect
(contract-related or otherwise).
Gratuitous argument: R101 takes precedence over
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 18:15 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
It's
ambiguous whether deregistration or degregistration was meant, so
the last paragraph of Rule 2197 prevents it from having any effect
(contract-related or
Wooble wrote:
Gratuitous argument: R101 takes precedence over R2197 (and the rest of
the ruleset, pretty much); no interpretation of the rules can deprive
a player of eir right to cease to be a player. Interpreting a typo to
deprive one of ones rights would be a particularly bad
On 29 Dec 2008, at 23:01, Ed Murphy wrote:
Caller's arguments: degregistration was re-defined as joining the
UNDAD contract as recently as a couple months ago (see CFJ 2237).
It's
ambiguous whether deregistration or degregistration was meant, so
the last paragraph of Rule 2197 prevents it
On 29 Dec 2008, at 23:08, Alex Smith wrote:
a-d
a-b, actually.
http://groups.google.com/group/paranomic-xp
http://asynchronous.org/paranomic-xp/
At the tone, the time will be 15:46:FF on Oneday, Weekcycle 012,
Yearcycle 214. Your duty cycle begins now. Greetings, Citizen.
On Dec 29, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/paranomic-xp
http://asynchronous.org/paranomic-xp/
At the tone, the time will be 15:46:FF on Oneday, Weekcycle 012,
Yearcycle 214. Your duty cycle begins now. Greetings, Citizen.
Friend Computer! I wish to
comex wrote:
In B Nomic, a scam has attempted to forcibly pass a Refresh Proposal
including the following:
{
Create a new Essential rule titled The Mao Protectorate with the
text { There exists an External Force known as the Secret Ruleset. A
Player may take any game action authorized by
20 matches
Mail list logo
