Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> I agree to the {}-delimited contract below.
>
> With the majority consent of the set of myself, I cause the LPRS to
> intend with Agoran Consent to register.
Fails, the LPRS is not a contract.
Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> tiyaeotkoisidtidthpalalt.
>> or it collides with yasacisaisidtid is left as an exercise. I, for one,
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Pavit
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> tiyaeotkoisidtidthpalalt.
> or it collides with yasacisaisidtid is left as an exercise. I, for one,
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>
>> tiyaeotpocawethpafalt
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Benjamin
Caplan wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Pavitra wrote:
>>
>>> tiyaeotpocawethpafalt.
>>
>> TPOCAWE? (And nathoeusnat, for that matter?)
>>
> The practice of cryptic acronyms without explanation.
>
> nathoeusnat was just banging randomly on my (Dvorak) keyboar
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>
>> tiyaeotpocawethpafalt.
>
> TPOCAWE? (And nathoeusnat, for that matter?)
>
The practice of cryptic acronyms without explanation.
nathoeusnat was just banging randomly on my (Dvorak) keyboard.
What are tiyaeotkoisidtidthpalalt and yasacisaisidtid? In part
Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 15:47 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
Also, wasn't the original CFJ appealed? Or did the attempt to appeal it
go wrong somehow?
>>> coppro intended to appeal and only got 1 sup
Pavitra wrote:
> tiyaeotpocawethpafalt.
TPOCAWE? (And nathoeusnat, for that matter?)
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> This proposal would be ineffective because you don't specify where
>> in the rules to add the new texts. ("Append" works, "append after X"
>> works, "add" does not work.)
>
> Is there a precedent for this?
Ordinary language; "
Pavitra wrote:
> While you're at it, you might change "during the voting period" so it
> can't mean "throughout the entire voting period".
Bah, the Note's already been spent. If this passes, would the Janitor
please change it to "at some point during the voting period"?
ehird wrote:
> On 2009-06-17, Ed Murphy wrote:
[snip]
>> (The FAQ should probably include entries for "AGAINT", "nkep",
>> and "zoop", if it doesn't already. Any others?)
> Retarded monkies and The Retarded Monkey School of Rule
> Interpretation!
I expect those would be reasonably obvious from
coppro wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> coppro wrote:
>>
>>> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2544a
> I opine REASSIGN. REMAND would normally be appropriate in this
> situation, however, the cas
ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 15:47 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> Also, wasn't the original CFJ appealed? Or did the attempt to appeal it
>>> go wrong somehow?
>> coppro intended to appeal and only got 1 support.
>
> Oops, I meant t
ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 12:33 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> Fine. But I still think I deserve a win from this, so I CFJ on the
>> following sentence. It would be legal for for the IADoP to submit eir
>> report with the date the report is being submitted, not the date eir
>> previo
G. wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> c-walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
I agree to the below contract. I intend without three objections to
flip the contestmaster of the below contract to BobTHJ.
>>> I object. What exactly is the po
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Clarify conditional votes
>
> Amend Rule 2127 (Conditional Votes) by replacing the first two
> paragraphs with this text:
>
> If a vote on an Agoran decision is submitted conditionally
> (e.g. "FOR if is true, otherwise AGAINST"), then the
> select
Sean Hunt wrote:
> I CFJ {The proposal entitled It's the Thought That Counts, if adopted,
> would successfully cause the first Rule Change described in its text.}
> I CFJ {The proposal entitled It's the Thought That Counts, if adopted,
> would successfully cause the second Rule Change described in
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> This proposal would be ineffective because you don't specify where
> in the rules to add the new texts. ("Append" works, "append after X"
> works, "add" does not work.)
Is there a precedent for this?
--
-c.
Leaves ambiguity.
On 2009-06-18, Sean Hunt wrote:
> The following are the Myndzi Playerhood Safety Nets, one with myndzi
> being a player, one with em not being a player.
>
> {myndzi is a player.}
> {myndzi is not a player.}
>
> Either document may be ratified at a later date, this allows any
> a
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Benjamin
> Caplan wrote:
>> Interesting.
>>
>> We really need a more explicitly well-ordered ruleset if things like
>> this need to be spelled out. Rule says "rules to the contrary
>> notwithstanding", and that just isn't true. The rules SHOULD
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Benjamin
Caplan wrote:
> Interesting.
>
> We really need a more explicitly well-ordered ruleset if things like
> this need to be spelled out. Rule says "rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding", and that just isn't true. The rules SHOULD NOT contain
> falsehoo
Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
>>> 6357 O 1 1.0 comex 3 support is boring
>> FOR x 12
>
> Rule 2019 takes precedence over Rule (both Power=2, both claim
> precedence, 2019 has lower rule number) so this works.
Interesting.
We really need a more explicitly well-ordered rul
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, comex wrote:
>> It is reasonable to expect a small modicum of effort by the judge,
>> such as reading messages sent to the discussion forum on the same day.
>
> You have to understand: when I joined this game (you can see this when
> you look back at the
Retarded monkies and The Retarded Monkey School of Rule Interpretation!
On 2009-06-17, Ed Murphy wrote:
> c-walker wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> I agree to the below contract. I intend without three objections to
>>> flip the contestmaster of the below contra
Combine that in an iPhoning fashion.
On 2009-06-17, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Elliott Hird wrote:
>> I Dance a Powerful Dance.
>>
>> I hail Eris!
>
> So do I, but in a bottom-posting fashion.
>
> Pavitra
>
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
>> I CFJ on the following sentence. I cast a vote in the recent Promotor
>> election.
>
> Trivially TRUE, you cast an invalid vote.
> I sit up. I become Hanging.
I thought it was trivially FALSE at first, but I see what yo
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Alex Smith wrote:
>> e can report Myndzi's playership
>> as disputed, but continuing for ages with unknown registration statuses
>> could really be damaging to Agora (c.f. Annabel, but probably not quite
>> as bad unless Myndzi starts taking actions).
>>
> E
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 15:50 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The problem on putting the onus on the CFJ caller, here, is that e may
> not be the best person to know the information. If the caller responds,
> effectively, "go on, then, continue playing with unkno
Alex Smith wrote:
> Part of the serious problem in this case is that there isn't a whole lot
> of information around as-is; in particular, I'm not entirely sure if
> there's enough information to produce a judgement, although there may
> be. Even more interesting, the playership of a player is up f
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 15:50 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Gratuitous arguments for the appeal:
> In this case, from the Caller's Evidence, there's no record of what
> happened, no reference to the event that may have made Myndzi a
> player, and no reference for the judge to look it up. Only an obs
2009/6/18 Kerim Aydin
>
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> >> I initiate an Agoran decision to decide the holder of the Anarchist
> >> office. The eligible voters are the active players, the vote collector
> >> is the IADoP, and the valid opt
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 15:41, Taral wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> No. When a win by points occurs it schedules an event one week in the
>>> future. When it comes time for that event the game checks if a skunk
>>> has been declared in the pas
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 15:58, Benjamin
Caplan wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I agree to the below contract. I intend without three objections to
>> flip the contestmaster of the below contract to BobTHJ.
>> {
>> The name of this public contract is the Points Relay Service II. Any
>> person CAN joi
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> c-walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
I agree to the below contract. I intend without three objections to
flip the contestmaster of the below contract to BobTHJ.
>>>
>>> I object. What exact
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Elliott Hird
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I Dance a Powerful Dance.
>>
>> tiyaeotkoisidtidthpalalt.
>
> At the time of the Town Fountain, "to dance" had a cultural significance
> of public by-announcement per
Roger Hicks wrote:
> I agree to the below contract. I intend without three objections to
> flip the contestmaster of the below contract to BobTHJ.
> {
> The name of this public contract is the Points Relay Service II. Any
> person CAN join or leave this contract. Any party CAN amend this
> contract
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> By this definition, I make the current list of those who are marvy:
>> {C-walker, Pavitra, Taral, ehird}. Note that allispaul is not on this
>> list. Therefore, FALSE.
>
> NoV: Taral violated the Power=4 Rule 2029 by failing to D
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> True, but I don't see how that ties a specific skunk to a specific
> reset. I could honestly see this being interpreted either way, but in
> my estimation one skunk canceling all pending resets seems to make the
> most sense based on the wording
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 15:41, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> No. When a win by points occurs it schedules an event one week in the
>> future. When it comes time for that event the game checks if a skunk
>> has been declared in the past week. If not the reset
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 16:40 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:38 AM,
> > C-walker wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >>> == CFJ 2586 ==
> >>>
> >>>Myndzi is
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> No. When a win by points occurs it schedules an event one week in the
> future. When it comes time for that event the game checks if a skunk
> has been declared in the past week. If not the reset occurs, otherwise
> it does not.
Except that sku
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:38 AM,
> C-walker wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> == CFJ 2586 ==
>>>
>>>Myndzi is a player.
>>
>> I judge UNDETERMINED due to complete lack of evidence. T
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 15:35, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> "If any player does so within the allowed week..." in the next
>> sentence would corroborate this I think. From my reading one skunk
>> would void all pending point resets.
>
> That doesn't make sen
Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> Fine. But I still think I deserve a win from this, so I CFJ on the
>> following sentence. It would be legal for for the IADoP to submit eir report
>> with the date the report is being submitted, not the date eir previous
>> report was submitted.
>
Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> "If any player does so within the allowed week..." in the next
>> sentence would corroborate this I think. From my reading one skunk
>> would void all pending point resets.
>
> That doesn't make sense. One skunk and one reset. Y
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> "If any player does so within the allowed week..." in the next
> sentence would corroborate this I think. From my reading one skunk
> would void all pending point resets.
That doesn't make sense. One skunk and one reset. Your reading would
mean
2009/6/17 Charles Reiss
> I don't think your attempt to define 'Marvy' does anything. (The judge,
> after carefully considering the implications of using it as guidance,
> will probably decide not to in the best interest of the game.) And,
> well, "you who are marvellous" probably isn't a bad 'ord
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 15:09, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Taral wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> I object, since this would interrupt the other two score resets. Since
>>> every player is losing 98% of their points anyways, I don't think the
>>> third reset will have any impa
Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I object, since this would interrupt the other two score resets. Since
>> every player is losing 98% of their points anyways, I don't think the
>> third reset will have any impact whatsoever.
>
> Would it? I'm not convinced that t
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 14:56 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 14:51, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > I object, since this would interrupt the other two score resets. Since
> > every player is losing 98% of their points anyways, I don't think the
> > third reset will have any impact whatsoeve
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I object, since this would interrupt the other two score resets. Since
> every player is losing 98% of their points anyways, I don't think the
> third reset will have any impact whatsoever.
Would it? I'm not convinced that this will prevent the o
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 14:51, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 14:43, Taral wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:25 AM, comex wrote:
> The following is a Win Announcement: coppro and comex each have scores
> x+yi such that xy >= 2500
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 14:51, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 14:43, Taral wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:25 AM, comex wrote:
The following is a Win Announcement: coppro and comex each have scores
x+yi such that xy >= 2500.
>>> I intend, with Agora
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 14:48 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Does anyone care to CFJ this? or would one of the scammers kindly
> describe how this scam works? as far as I can see it doesn't, but I
> suspect I may be missing something.
I think I can explain, because I was planning the same scam myself (
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 14:47, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 13:43 -0700, Taral wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:25 AM, comex wrote:
>> > The following is a Win Announcement: coppro and comex each have scores
>> > x+yi such that xy >= 2500.
>>
>> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to de
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Normally, I'd agree. However, there are going to be so many score resets
> anyway due to legit wins, that why bother?
To avoid stacking resets? On principle? I'm leaning toward the latter,
since I have no points anyway.
--
Taral
"Please let m
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:25, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I agree to CO 1.
>> I agree to CO 2.
>> I agree to CO 3.
>> I agree to CO 4.
>> I agree to CO 5.
>> I agree to CO 6.
>> I agree to CO 7.
>> I agree to CO 8.
>> I agree to CO 9.
>> I agree to CO 10.
>
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 13:43 -0700, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:25 AM, comex wrote:
> > The following is a Win Announcement: coppro and comex each have scores
> > x+yi such that xy >= 2500.
>
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to declare a skunk.
>
Normally, I'd agree. However, there a
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 15:47 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Also, wasn't the original CFJ appealed? Or did the attempt to appeal it
> > go wrong somehow?
>
> coppro intended to appeal and only got 1 support.
Oops, I meant to support that too.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Also, wasn't the original CFJ appealed? Or did the attempt to appeal it
> go wrong somehow?
coppro intended to appeal and only got 1 support.
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 13:44 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> > Fine. But I still think I deserve a win from this, so I CFJ on the
> > following sentence. It would be legal for for the IADoP to submit eir report
> > with the date the report
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 12:33 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Fine. But I still think I deserve a win from this, so I CFJ on the
> following sentence. It would be legal for for the IADoP to submit eir
> report with the date the report is being submitted, not the date eir
> previous report was submitt
2009/6/17 Rodlen
>
> I judge CFJ 2582 true. A Powerful Dance has a separate and distinct
> existence, and is therefore an entity. Therefore, as it is powerful, it is
> an Instrument.
>
> --
> --Rodlen
Unless either this or the CFJ about Taral, ehird and whoever it was
baing Marvies gets appeal
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Oh but wait, that means the Caller has to expend some effort instead
> of the CotC, a full appeals court, and the judges? How un-Agoran!
It is reasonable to expect a small modicum of effort by the judge,
such as reading messages sent to the di
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Ryan Ursenbach wrote:
>> I agree to all of those contracts
I favor this CFJ. Too early?
Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
>> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>>> Sean Hunt wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2544a
I opine REASSIGN. REMAND would normally be appropriate in this
situation, however, the case now has an interest in
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> C-walker wrote:
>> I judge UNDETERMINED due to complete lack of evidence. This is clearly
>> not decidable based on the Caller's Evidence below, and as per CFJ
>> 1744 it is not my job to go finding the relevant evidence in the
>> archives.
>
> I intend
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> c-walker wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> I agree to the below contract. I intend without three objections to
>>> flip the contestmaster of the below contract to BobTHJ.
>>
>> I object. What exactly is the point? (No pun in
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> c-walker wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> I recuse c-walker from CFJ 2547.
>>
>> When was I assigned to this? I can't seem to find it.
>
> June 6.
Ah, I've found it now. Third Judge lucky?
--
C-walker
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:11, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2572
>>
>> = Criminal Case 2572 =
>>
>> You May Call Me Big Fucking Edward violated the Power 2 Rule
>> 2158 by f
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:38 AM,
> C-walker wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> == CFJ 2586 ==
>>>
>>>Myndzi is a player.
>> I judge UNDETERMINED due to complete lack of evidence. This
Roger Hicks wrote:
> Fails. No new rests were created as a result of appeal. You can only
> destroy rests from the prior judgement if the appeal overrules,
> remands, or reassigns.
>
> BobTHJ
Ah, yes, I was confusing it with the closed NoV -> GUILTY interaction
that causes double rests.
Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
>> Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2572
>>>
>>> = Criminal Case 2572 =
>>>
>>> You May Call Me Big Fucking Edward violated the Power 2 Rule
>>> 2158 by failin
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:12, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2545a
>>
>> Appeal 2545a
>>
>> Panelist: Tiger
>> Decision:
coppro wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2572
>>
>> = Criminal Case 2572 =
>>
>> You May Call Me Big Fucking Edward violated the Power 2 Rule
>> 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to C
c-walker wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I recuse c-walker from CFJ 2547.
>
> When was I assigned to this? I can't seem to find it.
June 6.
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2009-June/006493.html
c-walker wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I agree to the below contract. I intend without three objections to
>> flip the contestmaster of the below contract to BobTHJ.
>
> I object. What exactly is the point? (No pun intended).
To zoop around the rules' restrictio
Elliott Hird wrote:
> Listen. 101 requires explicit, willful consent. That was simply not present.
E has the right not to be bound. This does not necessarily mean e
implicitly exercises that right.
BobTHJ wrote:
> Point Vouchers are an asset whose recordkeepor is the contestmaster.
> There are two types of Point Vouchers: X and Y. Point Vouchers of the
> same type are fungible. Point Vouchers may be abbreviated as PVX and
> PVY respectively.
You abbreviate the latter as PRY in the rest of t
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2572
>
> = Criminal Case 2572 =
>
> You May Call Me Big Fucking Edward violated the Power 2 Rule
> 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2537 as soon as
>
ehird wrote:
> I Dance a Powerful Dance.
>
> I hail Eris!
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/11/19/
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:09, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> 2009/6/17 C-walker
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> > I agree to the below contract. I intend without three objections to
>> > flip the contestmaster of the below contract to BobTHJ.
>>
>> I object. What exactly is
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:50, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Jonatan
> Kilhamn wrote:
>> Trading with points can already be done, however, at least in the same
>> limited fashion as the contract would allow - no more then 5 points
>> from any player or to any player per week.
>
>
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:42 PM, comex wrote:
> Er, okay. I can't find where Pavitra gained that extra 8 crop, so I'm
> recording it as having been created in the IBA's possession by
> self-ratification.
e has an 8 ranch. It entirely possible you were looking at a AAA
report that didn't include
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Jonatan
Kilhamn wrote:
> Trading with points can already be done, however, at least in the same
> limited fashion as the contract would allow - no more then 5 points
> from any player or to any player per week.
No they can't, because Rule 2166 (Assets) states that
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:35 AM, comex wrote:
>> This partially fails (unless I was wrong about Pavitra's crop
>> holdings?) because the IBA only had 3 8 crops.
>
> The AAA report of 8 June listed it with 4 8 crops. If it was
> incorrect,
2009/6/17 Roger Hicks
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 09:50, C-walker
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> >> I agree to the below contract. I intend without three objections to
> >> flip the contestmaster of the below contract to BobTHJ.
> >
> > I object. What exactly i
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:50 AM,
C-walker wrote:
> I object. What exactly is the point? (No pun intended).
The same as the last PRS; to subvert the democratic process to create
a market for a scarce resource.
If you want it to be easier to transfer points (and it is already
easier than it was wh
2009/6/17 C-walker
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > I agree to the below contract. I intend without three objections to
> > flip the contestmaster of the below contract to BobTHJ.
>
> I object. What exactly is the point? (No pun intended).
>
> --
> C-walker
Ensuring C no
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 09:50, C-walker wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I agree to the below contract. I intend without three objections to
>> flip the contestmaster of the below contract to BobTHJ.
>
> I object. What exactly is the point? (No pun intended).
>
A con
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:35 AM, comex wrote:
> This partially fails (unless I was wrong about Pavitra's crop
> holdings?) because the IBA only had 3 8 crops.
The AAA report of 8 June listed it with 4 8 crops. If it was
incorrect, it's still since self-ratified.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 09:35, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
>>
>> I join the IBA.
>> I IBA-deposit 4 6 crops (gaining, I think, 200zm).
>> I IBA-withdraw 2 5 crops (for, I think, 54zm).
>> I IBA-withdraw 1 7 crop (for, I think, 19zm).
>> I IBA-withdraw 4 8 c
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
>
> I join the IBA.
> I IBA-deposit 4 6 crops (gaining, I think, 200zm).
> I IBA-withdraw 2 5 crops (for, I think, 54zm).
> I IBA-withdraw 1 7 crop (for, I think, 19zm).
> I IBA-withdraw 4 8 crops (for, I think, 48zm).
This partially fails (un
2009/6/17 Geoffrey Spear
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
> > I IBA-withdraw 2 5 crops (for, I think, 54zm).
>
> fails, you have no 5 crops.
Doesn't withdraw mean e's taking them out of the bank?
--
-Tiger
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
>> I IBA-withdraw 2 5 crops (for, I think, 54zm).
>
> fails, you have no 5 crops.
>
>> 3 + 7 = X
>> 4 * 8 = X
>> 4 * 8 = X
>> 4 * 8 = X
>> 8 / 3 = X
>>
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
> I IBA-withdraw 2 5 crops (for, I think, 54zm).
fails, you have no 5 crops.
> 3 + 7 = X
> 4 * 8 = X
> 4 * 8 = X
> 4 * 8 = X
> 8 / 3 = X
> 8 / 3 = X
> 8 / 3 = X
> 8 / 3 = X
> 7 / 4
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
>>
>> I Dance a Powerful Dance.
>
> tiyaeotkoisidtidthpalalt.
At the time of the Town Fountain, "to dance" had a cultural significance
of public by-announcement performance in Agora and could be u
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I recuse c-walker from CFJ 2547.
When was I assigned to this? I can't seem to find it.
--
C-walker, who intends, without objection
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> meaning they had when the rule was created), not to mention rule 1586, I
> can only conclude that "marvy" in rule 2029 has the meaning it did when
> the Fountain was created.
Just as a note, CFJ 1500 contradicts this approach (as the caller, I
reasoned as
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
>
> I Dance a Powerful Dance.
tiyaeotkoisidtidthpalalt.
Listen. 101 requires explicit, willful consent. That was simply not present.
On 2009-06-17, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Craig Daniel wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Warrigal wrote:
>>> 2009/6/16 Elliott Hird
2009/6/16 Taral :
> On Tue, Jun 16
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
