On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
>> I officially contest this list of valid options; there are no valid
>> options (see below):
>
> I officially contest this list of valid options; Rule 2105 (The Map
> of Agora) is a Flag Candidate and thus a valid option.
The problem with t
comex wrote:
> Note that Rule 1728 takes precedence over Rule 2140 (Power Controls
> Mutability), so any issue of the power of the contract is moot.
No, it isn't moot. Rule 1728 pretends that the contract is a rule,
but it doesn't pretend that it has Power > 0.
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> In any case, all rules have 1 <= Power <= 4 (R2142), so an entity acting
> as if it has a rule acts as if it is an instrument with unspecified
> power; this probably defaults to 1, but it is certainly not less than 1.
> comex's action would create a power-1 r
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
>> Note that Rule 1728 takes precedence over Rule 2140 (Power Controls
>> Mutability), so any issue of the power of the contract is moot.
>
> No it's not; it's been previously held that it's the power of whatever
> rule described that X can be
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> The only valid option is currently GOETHE'S FLAG CANDIDATE, below (note
>>> with one option, quorum does not apply):
>>
>> I vote for GOETHE'S FLAG CANDIDATE. -G
>
> I strongly encourage all Ag
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
> Note that Rule 1728 takes precedence over Rule 2140 (Power Controls
> Mutability), so any issue of the power of the contract is moot.
No it's not; it's been previously held that it's the power of whatever
rule described that X can be done without objection that
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
> If Contract A were a rule, it would be possible to use the without 15
> objections mechanism to create a new rule; therefore, R1728 authorizes
> it as long as the effects of the action are restricted to altering
> entities and/or attributes whose existence depend
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>> Nice try, but R217 actually says this:
>> Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
>> unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,
>> past judgements, and consideration of the best inter
Pavitra wrote:
> Nice try, but R217 actually says this:
> Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
> unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,
> past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the
> game.
>
> In particular
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> I argue that it is in the best interests of the game for this to mean
> that, upon your inactivation, The Pier became owned by the L&FD by
> another mechanism than transference.
Nope, CFJ 1910
--
-c.
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Now that I am an inactive player, I am ineligible to own The Pier. As
> such, according to R2166, it would be transferred to the LFD, but R2166
> contradicts itself directly by stating that fixed assets cannot be
> There is no way to properly resolve this; R217 says that
> the te
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:54 PM, comex wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement: If I don't receive 15 objections, it will be
> POSSIBLE for me to indirectly cause a Rule Change using Contract A.
Oh, and as usual for dictatorship attempts, if this is TRUE, the only
use of the created rule will be to award
Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/8/6 Warrigal :
>> I register.
>>
>> So, pop quiz! Which of the following three announcements, which are
>> all win announcements, is the longest of the three?
>>
>> I do.
>>
>> I am.
>>
>> My voting limit on an ordinary decision initiated at this time would
>> exceed the
coppro wrote:
> Warrigal wrote:
>> My voting limit on an ordinary decision initiated at this time would
>> exceed the combined voting limits of all other players on that
>> decision.
> I intend, with support, to publish an NoV accusing Warrigal of violating
> the 2-power Rule 2215 by publishing th
Ed Murphy wrote:
> I play a Distrib-u-Matic to make this distributable.
>
> Proposal: Also, Crete must be destroyed
> (AI = 3, please)
>
> Amend Rule 2240 (No Cretans Need Apply) to read:
>
> In a conflict between clauses of the same Rule, if exactly one
> claims precedence over the
Warrigal wrote:
> My voting limit on an ordinary decision initiated at this time would
> exceed the combined voting limits of all other players on that
> decision.
I intend, with support, to publish an NoV accusing Warrigal of violating
the 2-power Rule 2215 by publishing the quoted paragraph.
I C
Sgeo wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Non-recordkeepors, however, won't.
Actually, it will be a positive pain for recordkeepors (searching multiple
archives), for w
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 17:26, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 15:42, Warrigal wrote:
>>> I register.
>>>
>>> I deregister.
>>>
>> Problem: The Insulator, Grand Poobah, and Anarchist are all obligated
>> to deal Warrigal two cards but are unabl
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 15:42, Warrigal wrote:
>> I register.
>>
>> I deregister.
>>
> Problem: The Insulator, Grand Poobah, and Anarchist are all obligated
> to deal Warrigal two cards but are unable to do so because cards can
> only be created in the posse
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 15:42, Warrigal wrote:
> I register.
>
> I deregister.
>
Problem: The Insulator, Grand Poobah, and Anarchist are all obligated
to deal Warrigal two cards but are unable to do so because cards can
only be created in the possession of a player or contest. I assume
this is a tri
2009/8/6 Warrigal :
> I register.
>
> So, pop quiz! Which of the following three announcements, which are
> all win announcements, is the longest of the three?
>
> I do.
>
> I am.
>
> My voting limit on an ordinary decision initiated at this time would
> exceed the combined voting limits of all oth
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Sgeo wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
>>> I don't; there's no reason to be using the agoranomic.org archives,
>>> which are handy in a pinch but pretty clunky.
>>
>> I have every reason to do so; it's my preferred
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Pavitra wrote:
> In addition, the statement can only be considered "correct" in the
> local language-context scope of the message. Local definitions aren't in
> scope to affect the interpretation of Rules.
Yah, there's a similarity in meaning, but it's as non-working as the
tr
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Non-recordkeepors, however, won't.
>>>
>>> Actually, it will be a positive pain for recordkeepors (searching multiple
>>> archives), for whom I have mor
comex wrote:
> 18:02 < Warrigal> The rule requires that win announcements be correct.
> 18:02 < Warrigal> That win announcement was the correct answer to a question.
> 18:03 < Pavitra> lolll
> 18:04 < Warrigal> Obviously, if this were not an intended consequence,
> the rule would have required that
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> I register.
>
> So, pop quiz! Which of the following three announcements, which are
> all win announcements, is the longest of the three?
>
> I do.
>
> I am.
>
> My voting limit on an ordinary decision initiated at this time would
> exceed the combi
I think the irc logger needs a restart. -G.
Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/8/6 ais523 :
>> The above message was sent only as HTML, with no plaintext component. Is
>> there any precedent on whether such actions are effective? (Note that my
>> email client is set only to display the plaintext part of a message, so
>> I get a blank when there isn'
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, ais523 wrote:
> IMO, something like an AAA mill
> purchase is rather more contentful than the typical a-b content,
IMO, [the opposite]
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> As a supplement/alternative, what would people think of criminalizing
>> large numbers of public messages --
No.
2009/8/6 ais523 :
> The above message was sent only as HTML, with no plaintext component. Is
> there any precedent on whether such actions are effective? (Note that my
> email client is set only to display the plaintext part of a message, so
> I get a blank when there isn't a plaintext part.)
I ha
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 23:52 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
> As a supplement/alternative, what would people think of criminalizing
> large numbers of public messages -- say, 8 or 16 per person per week? It
> wouldn't platonically cancel any messages, and it should encourage
> people to lump their actions to
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 16:21 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I hereby initiate a Straw Poll to decide whether or not the
> Distributor should add another forum (tentatively with the name
> agora-business) to the agoranomic.org lists, and the Registrar should
> subsequently make it Public. The valid option
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 02:23 -0300, yuri_dragon_17 wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
> > yuri_dragon_17 wrote:
> >
> > > Just to make sure I understand all the vocabulary, am I eligible for a
> > > White Ribbon?
> > >
> > Yes.
> >
> >
> And I would do this by sending a message to the business l
34 matches
Mail list logo
