Rodlen wrote:
Recognizing that there were six violations of the rule, therefore
allowing a punishment for each, I opine AFFIRM.
NttPF
On 4/28/09 4:01 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
I retract the previous version of this proposal.
Proposal: Decriminalize restricted actions
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 2125 (Regulation Regulations) by replacing this text:
d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 07:04 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I spend C D E to flip j's caste to Alpha.
That's a lot to spend to ensure that a player who's abandoned the game
gets to be Epsilon in a couple of days.
Err... C D E
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I spend C D E to flip j's caste to Alpha.
That's a lot to spend to ensure that a player who's abandoned the game
gets to be Epsilon in a couple of days.
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 09:33 -0400, Quazie wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I judge CFJ 2471 FALSE. An announcement about the past that does not
fall into any of the categories in rule 869 is just a true statement,
not a registration action.
I
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 09:33 -0400, Quazie wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I judge CFJ 2471 FALSE. An announcement about the past that does not
fall into any of the categories in
Quazie wrote:
I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is
trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that
message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted to.
Interpreting after as a gloss for as a result of may be
acceptable shorthand for these
woggle wrote:
This should avoid taking precedence over a higher- or lower-class crime
defined by the rule that contains the MAY.
What would be better is a general precedence rule for actions violating
multiple rules, either to make explicit or to alter the current only
one (of the players'
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 07:25 -0700, Rodlen wrote:
DARGH!
Recognizing that there were six violations of the rule, therefore
allowing a punishment for each, I opine AFFIRM.
Does the subject line or who's-assigned-to-what list give enough context
to determine which appeal this is about, I
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote:
with:
Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise
lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. If
an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 07:25 -0700, Rodlen wrote:
DARGH!
Recognizing that there were six violations of the rule, therefore
allowing a punishment for each, I opine AFFIRM.
Does the subject line or who's-assigned-to-what
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is
trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that
message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted to.
I interpreted after as due to, but I
Quazie wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit a proposal, entitled In the future, I want my stuff back, a
more general solution, AI =2 with the following body:
In R2166 replace the following paragraph:
Each asset has exactly one owner. If
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:23 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is
trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that
message. I believe I
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote:
When I became a player is relevant, and what constitutes a valid
registration is relevant.
So the judgements should be left alone, since that's what they
currently determine.
-root
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Quazie wrote:
I submit a proposal, entitled In the future, I want my stuff back:
If I come back in time I would vote against this in principle. I'd
also object to every attempt to reclaim stuff unless it was due to
accidental bug-induced involuntary deregistration (which
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Quazie wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Also (just to note) I think that if you perform something obviously
illegal to win the game from scratch...
Quazie wrote:
What if there was a de-contest-ation. The removal of
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Generalize equity
(AI = 1.7, please)
Amend Rule 2169 (Equity Cases) by appending this text:
An equity case CAN be initiated identifying the ruleset in place
of a contract. For the purpose of such
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Generalize equity
(AI = 1.7, please)
Amend Rule 2169 (Equity Cases) by appending this text:
An equity case CAN be initiated identifying the ruleset in place
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Generalize equity
(AI = 1.7, please)
Amend Rule 2169 (Equity Cases) by appending this text:
An equity case CAN be
Goethe wrote:
Actually you're right. This doesn't work in that it means one could litigate
perfectly legal backstabbing, reducing someone else's caste, etc. which we
don't want. I think a more appropriate way would be to say that:
After a finding of Guilty, in place of a Sentence, an
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 13:29 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
Actually you're right. This doesn't work in that it means one could
litigate
perfectly legal backstabbing, reducing someone else's caste, etc. which we
don't want. I think a more appropriate way would be to say that:
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 15:04 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
The unnecessary score reset has been bugging me, especially with a
second one looming around the corner when comex manages to get rid of
eir rests. I don't think it merits something as complex as equity,
though.
Proposal: Mitigate point
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Heh, I have a proposal in the pool to achieve more or less exactly the
same effect, at the moment. Mine tries to fix the immediate aftermath of
the scams win, though (restoring the points of players whose points were
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: Scam tolerance
(AI = 1.7, please)
ais523 is a co-author of this proposal.
Amend Rule 2169 (Equity Cases) by appending this text:
For the purpose of an equity case regarding a scam, it is
generally equitable to let the scammers
Quazie wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Quazie wrote:
I join the above contract
Hrm... typo. I intend, without objection from a party to it, to replace
the ordinal 13 with 12 in 3-Scroll Rodney.
I intend, without objection from a party to it, to
coppro wrote:
I also have explict consent from Quazie privately to reduce the penalty
Rests to 2 from 4. I make all these amendments, making the text of
3-Scroll Rodney as follows:
NttPF.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
6254 Mitigate point scams O 1.0 1 root
AGAINST x 2 - there's no requirement this would have to be used for
It's not intended for scams only.
-root
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
6240 The Power of Capitalization, and I mean... D 3.0 1 Quazie
AGAINST - Don't force the Rulekeepor to do this emself; these could all
be Cleanliness changes. I also don't want any unintended effects.
For reference: (and
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I tried to post a thesis to the public forum recently but it was held
for approval due to being too long. Until it turns up, have a version
sent as a compressed attachment to save on size. I hereby publish the
document
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I tried to post a thesis to the public forum recently but it was held
for approval due to being too long. Until it turns up, have a version
sent as a compressed
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I tried to post a thesis to the public forum recently but it was held
for approval due to being too long. Until it turns up, have a version
sent as a compressed attachment to save on size. I hereby publish the
document
comex wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
6246 Fix Office InterestO 1.0 1 Wooble
CoE: Wooble submitted this, not coppro who's listed as the author later. FOR
Hrm... this is indeed the case. I appear to have accidentally
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
6256 Inactivity is unpopularD 2.0 1 coppro
AGAINST [inactives are preferred for promotions too?]
No, it simply allows me to demote inactives multiple times during a cycle.
Really, the idea that R2105 (The Map of Agora) has been a traditional
target of scamsters is a bit exaggerated. Here's the full history.
The map was created by Maud's proposal 4735. This wasn't the result
of a scam or anything, but people were itching a bit for a map, and
voters liked the
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Ian Kelly wrote:
Really, the idea that R2105 (The Map of Agora) has been a traditional
target of scamsters is a bit exaggerated. Here's the full history.
The map was created by Maud's proposal 4735. This wasn't the result
of a scam or anything, but people were itching
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Alex Smith wrote:
I tried to post a thesis to the public forum recently but it was held
for approval due to being too long. Until it turns up, have a version
sent as a compressed attachment to save on size. I hereby publish the
document attached to the
coppro wrote:
Create a new power-1 rule reading as follows:
{{
The Herald SHALL, as soon as possible after the enactment of this
rule, initiate an Agoran Decision to award ais523 a degree for eir
thesis on the ruleset, as specified in rule 1367. When e does so,
e CAN
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 20:29, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I harvest 106 (recently-amended rule number) for 8 random crops.
Any chance for a current SoA report?
BobTHJ
39 matches
Mail list logo
