On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Rodlen wrote:
> Hello. A few days ago, comex posted a declaration of victory to Blognomic,
> saying that he intended to, without objection, put every single Blognomic
> player on hold. Except he misnamed a few, and stuff.
>
> He used Agora terminology.
>
> http:
Hello. A few days ago, comex posted a declaration of victory to Blognomic,
saying that he intended to, without objection, put every single Blognomic
player on hold. Except he misnamed a few, and stuff.
He used Agora terminology.
http://blognomic.com/archive/invasion/
Was there any Agora reason
Taral wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> You have no support.
>
> Don't need it. R1504.
Ah, that is indeed correct. My mistake.
-coppro
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> You have no support.
Don't need it. R1504.
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I know I kinda should have been following it after nominating for
> the position, but I admit I have absolutely no idea who is claiming
> to be owed a win or associated patent title since the last Herald's
> report. I can go digging, but has anyone kept a handy list? -G.
You
Taral wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Judge ehird's Arguments:
>>
>> GUILTY/SILENCE; when the obligation was created, the AAA was a
>> contest, and obligations don't automagically stop existing because
>> they wouldn't if they were calculated now.
>
> I appeal the ju
I know I kinda should have been following it after nominating for
the position, but I admit I have absolutely no idea who is claiming
to be owed a win or associated patent title since the last Herald's
report. I can go digging, but has anyone kept a handy list? -G.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > A humble request: can players (esp. newish players without email
> addresses
> > matching their nicknames) get in the habit of including their nick as a
> > signature? Used to be pretty much the done thing (for everyone,
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> A humble request: can players (esp. newish players without email addresses
> matching their nicknames) get in the habit of including their nick as a
> signature? Used to be pretty much the done thing (for everyone, even the
> old-timers) though might be a little out-of-fashio
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Rodlen wrote:
> > Who exactly is the IADoP at this moment?
>
> Me! Exactly. Want the job? -Goethe
>
>
>
> Not at this moment. Just got here. Need to get used to the rules.
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Rodlen wrote:
> Who exactly is the IADoP at this moment?
Me! Exactly. Want the job? -Goethe
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Assessor: comex, Murphy
I endorse Rodlen.
> Promotor: coppro, PerlNomic Partnership (PNP)
I vote coppro.
Who exactly is the IADoP at this moment?
Welcome to Agora.
-Yally
ehird wrote:
> On 2009-03-24, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> coppro wrote:
>>
>>> You are not a party to the (currently non-contract) Vote Market II.
>> Oh, the perennial problem with the Vote Market was that most proposals
>> aren't controversial enough for anyone to bother buying votes. This
>> might be
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 19:35 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
>>>> Repeal Rule 104 (First Speaker).
>>>
>>> N!
>> Doesn't that rule serve no
I see you recognize me.
For those who are wondering: small-scale scam involving Blognomic treatment
of edited proposals. An instant-kill, which prompted a change in the
handling of edited proposals.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Elliott Hird <
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 200
On 2009-03-24, Corin T wrote:
> I, Rodlen, hereby register.
>
Oh god. Thankfully, emails are not editable.
> Hello, all. I'm just some random guy. I've had limited experience in
> Nomics, being an admin at Blognomic...HOLY SHIT THAT'S ONE HUGE RULESET!
It's been >2x bigger.
>
> ...Sorry about th
On 2009-03-24, Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
>> You are not a party to the (currently non-contract) Vote Market II.
>
> Oh, the perennial problem with the Vote Market was that most proposals
> aren't controversial enough for anyone to bother buying votes. This
> might be improved if more pro
Elliott Hird wrote:
> I join the PBA.
>
> Fix the rates:
>
> I intend, with the support of the People, to amend the PBA by adding
> the following paragraph: {Upon the addition of this paragraph to the
> PBA, all rates are set to 10 and this paragraph is removed.}
I support.
coppro wrote:
> You are not a party to the (currently non-contract) Vote Market II.
Oh, the perennial problem with the Vote Market was that most proposals
aren't controversial enough for anyone to bother buying votes. This
might be improved if more proposals were Ordinary; I should sit down
and
Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 6154 D 1 3.0 Goethe Third SHOULD fix
> SELL(^5)
>> 6155 O 1 1.0 comex Refactor falsity
> SELL(^10)
You are not a party to the (currently non-contract) Vote Market II.
(also, what's with the {^}?)
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I'm going to vote FOR. The ruleset needs to be simplified.
>
> Based on the above: I am the winner there are no rules.
I initiate an equity case with the rules as contract, the players as the
parties to the contract, and Pe
ehird wrote:
> 2009/3/23 Ed Murphy :
>> Gonna let us in on the secret(s)?
>>
>>
>
> XOR 42, XOR 21.
Aha, that produces:
There' is' nothing' suspicious' whatsoever' about' this' message
and
This message is innocent; at least, if you disagree you're probably
deluded(.($S
($SAnyway, I'd like to
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> XOR 42, XOR 21.
For reference:
"There is nothing suspicious whatsoever about this message"
"This message is innocent; at least, if you disagree you're probably
deluded. Anyway, I'd like to take this oppertunity to thank--"
True. On InterNomic he mentioned that all four players know each other in
real life, so I assumed...
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> Yes, but do they play? I can't find any message by anyone other than
> kennercat...
>
> 2009/3/23 Charles Walker :
> > Hey, I've just rese
Yes, but do they play? I can't find any message by anyone other than
kennercat...
2009/3/23 Charles Walker :
> Hey, I've just researched this again and not including me, there are 3
> members: http://groups.google.com/group/fresh-nomic?pli=1
>
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> w
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 13:11 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Just in case:
>
> If proposal 6122 did create a new rule, then I cause said new rule to
> amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank' by means of
> rule 2243.
And I suppose the upshot of all this is, if you're going to run a scam
Hey, I've just researched this again and not including me, there are 3
members: http://groups.google.com/group/fresh-nomic?pli=1
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I researched this Fresh Nomic a little bit and I've found that they have
> exactly one member who is literally
2009/3/23 Ed Murphy :
> Gonna let us in on the secret(s)?
>
>
XOR 42, XOR 21.
2009/3/23 Aaron Goldfein :
> I'm going to vote FOR. The ruleset needs to be simplified.
I'm going to pray for your soul. It needs cleansing.
Yally wrote:
> I'm going to vote FOR. The ruleset needs to be simplified.
Based on the above: I am the winner there are no rules.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> 2009/3/23 Alex Smith :
> > On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 19:35 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> >> wrote:
> >> 2009/3/22 Alex Smith :
> >>
> >> > On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 23:06 +0100
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > ais523, comex, and coppro can join this contract by announcement. Other
> > players can join this contract only with consent of all existing
> > members. Any party to this contract can leave
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 14:25 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > ais523, comex, and coppro can join this contract by announcement. Other
> > players can join this contract only with consent of all existing
> > members. Any party to this contract can leave i
2009/3/23 Alex Smith :
> On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 19:35 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
>> wrote:
>> 2009/3/22 Alex Smith :
>>
>> > On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 23:06 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> >> The following proposal is made a
Warrigal wrote:
>>> 6158 D 1 3.0 Goethe Rule Change Rights
>> PORx8
>>
>>> 6159 D 0 3.0 Murphy Close it up
>> PORx8
>
> I retract these votes. I vote ENDORSE Murphyx8, ENDORSE ais523x8 on
> both these decisions.
>
> --Warrigal, who hopes the Assessor knows how to assess
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
> PRESENT (I'm not that opposed to the idea; however, it certainly
> shouldn't be II 0.)
Woops, copy-paste error. Would people vote FOR if it were II=1?
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Un
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I hereby agree to the following agreement, which will become a public
> contract when it gets a second party:
> {{{
> This is a public contract and partnership called Indy.
>
> ais523, comex, and coppro can join this contract by announcement.
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 11:09 -0400, comex wrote:
> does. The proposal took effect but was unauthorized to make any Rule
> Changes so did nothing.
No, I think it didn't take effect, but nevertheless was not prevented
from taking effect. There isn't a contradiction there.
--
ais523
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 10:51 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> 2009/3/23 Charles Walker :
> > You could say something along the lines of
> > 'Where another nomic makes it possible for Agora or a representative of
> > Agora to perform actions within that nomic, X (person or post) may, without
> > 3 or
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 19:35 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
> 2009/3/22 Alex Smith :
>
> > On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 23:06 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> >> The following proposal is made as a part of the Anarch
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> CFJ: Proposal 6122 has taken effect.
>>>
>>> Caller's arguments: Per Rule 2034(c) as amended by Proposal 6139, the
>>> resolution of Proposals 6121 through 6139 constituted a self-rati
Well I don't actually play Agora so I wouldn't know. I'ts probably better to
change the Ambassador rule.
C-walker
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> This X should probably be an office, but I'm not sure which one: first
> I thought the natural choice would be the Ambassador
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:09 AM, comex wrote:
> The proposal took effect but was unauthorized to make any Rule
> Changes so did nothing.
Actually, if we interpret "not prevented from taking effect" liberally
and require that the proposal wasn't a no-op, we're in an interesting
situation. The pr
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> CFJ: Proposal 6122 has taken effect.
>>
>> Caller's arguments: Per Rule 2034(c) as amended by Proposal 6139, the
>> resolution of Proposals 6121 through 6139 constituted a self-ratifying
>> claim that Proposal 6122 has not
2009/3/23 Charles Walker :
> You could say something along the lines of
> 'Where another nomic makes it possible for Agora or a representative of
> Agora to perform actions within that nomic, X (person or post) may, without
> 3 or more objections, perform those actions.'
This X should probably be a
You should keep it general, but you need to mention who is going to vote on
Agora's behalf as the liaison. You could say something along the lines of
'Where another nomic makes it possible for Agora or a representative of
Agora to perform actions within that nomic, X (person or post) may, without
3
48 matches
Mail list logo
