On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 18:04, Elliott
Hird wrote:
> 2009/7/17 Roger Hicks :
>> I didn't
>> mess with the font-size (as ehird suggested) but the text-only version
>> should compensate for this.
>
> Why not just... get the non-text one right?
>
Because I'm really rather fond of the 10pt type. If th
Wooble wrote:
> I guess 6 proposals, 9 CFJs
Invalid, guesses must now be in by the end of Friday (UTC).
2009/7/17 Roger Hicks :
> I didn't
> mess with the font-size (as ehird suggested) but the text-only version
> should compensate for this.
Why not just... get the non-text one right?
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 15:12, Roger Hicks wrote:
> All activity related to cards since their inception is available for
> perusal at my web-interface: http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx
>
> It is still rather rough at the moment. Changes to account for ehird's
> suggestions as well as a text
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 14:34, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Deck of Change Report
>>
>> CARDS IN HAND
>> -
>
> I've lost track; are these cards that *have* been dealt, or
> that *will* be dealt upon some deputisation time limit ending?
>
> -G.
>
Have
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Deck of Change Report
>
> CARDS IN HAND
> -
I've lost track; are these cards that *have* been dealt, or
that *will* be dealt upon some deputisation time limit ending?
-G.
Deck of Change Report
CARDS IN HAND
-
ais523
Committee x4
Distrib-u-Matic x6
Presto!
allispaul
Distrib-u-Matic x2
Ben Daniel
Committee x2
BobTHJ
Distrib-u-Matic x5
Your Turn
c.
Committee x2
Distrib-u-Matic x2
coppro
Distrib-u-Matic x3
Your Turn
C
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> For each proposal currently in the Proposal Pool, I intend, without 3
> objections, to distribute it.
There were some pretty bad and obviously unfinished proposals in this
pool. Is a third person willing to object to this? -G.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 13:33, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I deputize for the Anarchist to deal cards from the deck of Change as
>> a result of these proposals. Dealings to follow in automated e-mail.
>
> AFAICT, we have an Anarchist and e hasn't m
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I deputize for the Anarchist to deal cards from the deck of Change as
> a result of these proposals. Dealings to follow in automated e-mail.
AFAICT, we have an Anarchist and e hasn't missed the deadline for these.
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 17. HP2d
> [**]The WIN RANK shows when players were last awarded the Patent Title
> Champion going back to January, 2007.
Addendum: I just went back to 2005, which had the effect of putting Taral
on the list at #18: on 12-Mar-06 Taral held a w
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:45 AM, comex wrote:
> I don't see how it doesn't. On the other hand, "readING"? Seriously? :)
Maybe it's reading the ellipsis as a pause that's throwing me off.
Except the second line gives me problems too.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 17, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
I withdraw my previous comments arguing for power=2, and request an
appeals judgment of REMAND.
No remand please
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Geoffrey Spear
wrote:
Though c.'s intent (in my reading)
scans not in iambs of pent
Still coppro's verse deserves no worse
than Bard, I support eir intent.
I don't see how it doesn't. On the other hand, "readING"? Seriously? :)
I'd like to see the EUDI (http://eudi.forumotion.net/) flipped to
Neutral. They're not *primarily* a nomic -- they're a player guild in an
online game I play -- but they have a formal charter that provides for
self-amendment, and I think it would be cool (and help spread awareness
of Agora and of N
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 06:23, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Didn't nomicron basically die because they were waiting for you to
> automate the entire game? And didn't A Nomic and 2 eras of B Nomic
> die by relying on one player's recordkeeping?
>
Sssshhh.you're disrupting the nice little fantasy wor
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Benjamin
Caplan wrote:
> So you didn't intend anything *specific*, but you did intend that
> *something* would happen.
I for one intended to be bound by whatever the text said.
--
-c.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> comex clearly believes these rules do not exist at all based on eir
> judgment. So which is it? If these rules exist at power=1 (preferable
> in my opinion) then someone else should support my appeal so more
> appropriate arguments can be submit
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 00:40, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> Thinking about how to automate this is giving me a headache. Your
>>> logic seems sound however (apart from coppro's addition)
>>>
>>> BobTHJ
>>
>> The good news is that y
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 02:08, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:59, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Roger Hicks wrote:
Soanyone want to fix this? If this judgment stands all current
deals are in error since the cards and decks do not exist.
BobTHJ
>>>
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:59, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> Soanyone want to fix this? If this judgment stands all current
>>> deals are in error since the cards and decks do not exist.
>>>
>>> BobTHJ
>> Why is that? Defining cards isn't secured as far as I se
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:59, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Soanyone want to fix this? If this judgment stands all current
>> deals are in error since the cards and decks do not exist.
>>
>> BobTHJ
> Why is that? Defining cards isn't secured as far as I see.
>
All the rules that def
Roger Hicks wrote:
> Soanyone want to fix this? If this judgment stands all current
> deals are in error since the cards and decks do not exist.
>
> BobTHJ
Why is that? Defining cards isn't secured as far as I see.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:02, Benjamin
Caplan wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> I agree with c. here; rule changes have a special standard and absolute
>>> and precise specification is required. �I screwed up. �-G.
>>
>> On my part, I apologize that
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 00:40, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Thinking about how to automate this is giving me a headache. Your
>> logic seems sound however (apart from coppro's addition)
>>
>> BobTHJ
>
> The good news is that you don't have to.
>
No reallyit's a good kind of pain. I
comex wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I agree with c. here; rule changes have a special standard and absolute
>> and precise specification is required. �I screwed up. �-G.
>
> On my part, I apologize that I have to leave in the middle of what
> looks like some cont
26 matches
Mail list logo
