On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 11:50 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhapsmy program can be easily changed, though this really has
nothing to do with automation, it has to do with how I (a human
person) interpreted the
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
It matters when the person we elect as recordkeepor uses someone
else's broken program and an annoying act-on-behalf system to avoid
doing the job at all.
then surely we can elect someone else as recordkeepor?
--
-c.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
It matters when the person we elect as recordkeepor uses someone
else's broken program and an annoying act-on-behalf system to avoid
doing the job at all.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
When any other entity is audited the auditing entity (or the Accountor
if the auditing entity is a non-person) CAN and SHALL as soon as
possible (by announcement)
I don't think the current rule is ambiguous at all. And
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:27, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
When any other entity is audited the auditing entity (or the Accountor
if the auditing entity is a non-person) CAN and SHALL as soon as
possible (by
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Address: what if the auditing entity is a non-person?
A non-person shouldn't be able to hold one of the Dealor offices or
take an action such as playing a Penalty Box card. If it can, that's
a bug.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:26, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
It matters when the person we elect as recordkeepor uses someone
else's broken
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:34, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Address: what if the auditing entity is a non-person?
A non-person shouldn't be able to hold one of the Dealor offices or
take an action such as
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Irrelevant. The audit rule specifically attempts to address what would
occur if there is no auditing entity (and by this we can only infer
that the author's intent was non-person entity). Since it would be
impossible for
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Irrelevant. The audit rule specifically attempts to address what would
occur if there is no auditing entity (and by this we can only infer
that
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:12, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Irrelevant. The audit rule specifically attempts to address what would
occur if there is no auditing entity (and by this we can only infer
that the
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:17 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case
has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid
judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as
possible, unless e is recused
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
ais523
Majority Leader
Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5
Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits.
--
Charles Walker
Charles Walker wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
ais523
Majority Leader
Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5
Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits.
They do, however, BobTHJ's reports are somewhat misleading as they imply
that hand limits are on a
coppro wrote:
Charles Walker wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
ais523
Majority Leader
Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5
Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits.
They do, however, BobTHJ's reports are somewhat misleading as they imply
that hand limits are on a per-deck basis, which they are not. They
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:35, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Acting on behalf of Grand Poobah (if required): {
coppro is dealt the following card(s) from the deck of Government:
Lobbyist
}
Reason: Janitor weekly salary
Fails, I wasn't the Janitor for last
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:35, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Acting on behalf of Grand Poobah (if required): {
coppro is dealt the following card(s) from the deck of Government:
Lobbyist
}
Reason: Janitor weekly salary
Fails, I wasn't the
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:10, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
coppro wrote:
Charles Walker wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
ais523
Majority Leader
Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5
Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits.
They do, however, BobTHJ's reports are
Roger Hicks wrote:
For the week beginning Oct 12. Unless I recorded the date wrong you
assumed the office of Janitor shortly before the new-week rollover:
Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:33 - coppro assumes the office of Janitor
BobTHJ
That was Walker.
-coppro
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:55, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
For the week beginning Oct 12. Unless I recorded the date wrong you
assumed the office of Janitor shortly before the new-week rollover:
Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:33 - coppro assumes the office of Janitor
BobTHJ
Roger Hicks wrote:
I contest all of these. Borrowing from the practice of the previous
Insulator Murphy (a practice which was discussed on the lists and
mutually agreed upon to be valid) I announced the validity of these
NOVs as part of the weekly Insulator report.
BobTHJ
You did until you
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 13:59, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 13:45, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I publish an NoV alleging that BobTHJ violated Rule 2230, a Power-2
Rule, by failing to announce publicly the validity of the NoV identified
Walker wrote:
NomicWiki has been updated as per my Ambassador duties. Any comments
or requests for addition to the page are welcome.
PerlNomic no longer participates. LiveNomic used to (I assume the
recent claim to terminate/deregister the LNP were effective).
The FRCommittee awards points
Walker wrote:
NomicWiki has been updated as per my Ambassador duties. Any comments
or requests for addition to the page are welcome.
Oh, and AgoraTheses should include
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-November/008338.html
for a Bachelor of Nomic
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Protect intent
Amend Rule 2215 (Truthiness) by appending this text:
The above notwithstanding, a person stating that e intends to
perform an action in the future does not thereby violate this
Walker wrote:
Chamber is a proposal switch, possessed only by proposals which
are in the proposal pool or have an ongoing Agoran Decision to
adopt them, tracked by the Promotor, with values Green
(default), Red and Purple. In the same message in which a player
Sgeo wrote:
[[A player CAN publish a Notice of Violation (with N support,
where N is the number of valid un-Closed Notices of Violation e
previously published during the same week, or by announcement if
N is zero) alleging that a single entity (the Accused) has
broken
Pavitra wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
I humbly request the CotC refuse the excess cases initiated above.
That would effectively dismiss some of the charges; should the CotC have
the power to arbitrarily impose an upper limit on the severity of
criminal punishment? That sounds like a job for
Pavitra wrote:
Note that both of the above CFJs are Disinterested. I believe that this
is appropriate, since they appear to be trivially UNDECIDABLE and FALSE
respectively.
Crap, how did I miss this change? Will review archives and patch the
DB; the possibly-affected CFJs are
Ed Murphy wrote:
Also, oi, another revision to the Assessor scripts (albeit a
minor one).
I do not believe that the effect on a programmer's ability to program
the game state should be a valid reason why Agora should choose to
support/oppose a given rules change. I haven't taken it into
I wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
Note that both of the above CFJs are Disinterested. I believe that this
is appropriate, since they appear to be trivially UNDECIDABLE and FALSE
respectively.
Crap, how did I miss this change? Will review archives and patch the
DB; the possibly-affected CFJs are
coppro wrote:
6520 O 1 1.0 ais523 Open-ended duties are bad
FOR x 12
6521 O 0 1.0 BobTHJ Flag Anarchy
FOR x 12
According to my records, your caste is Savage, and Wooble is
Chief Whip. If you play cards to change your voting limit,
please remind me to add some/all
Tiger wrote:
Savage: (Voting Limit: 0)
-
ə
coppro
The LNP
The Normish Partnership II
*The People's Bank of Agora
IBA
CoE: The LNP was allegedly deregistered on Sat 10 Oct 12:35:05 UTC.
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Also, oi, another revision to the Assessor scripts (albeit a
minor one).
I do not believe that the effect on a programmer's ability to program
the game state should be a valid reason why Agora should choose to
support/oppose a given rules change. I haven't
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I recuse c. from CFJs 2696 and 2698 and make em supine.
crap. I was going to make a big long judgement, even
this is why I'm a terrible judge.
--
-c.
Ed Murphy wrote:
I recuse Pavitra from CFJs 2704 and 2706 and make em supine.
Sorry about that, everyone.
I might as well post my incomplete attempt at working through 2706:
I accept the arguments by ehird and G. to the
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I recuse Pavitra from CFJs 2704 and 2706 and make em supine.
Sorry about that, everyone.
I might as well post my incomplete attempt at working through 2706:
Heh, here's mine:
There is definitely
Mostly in case it affects c.'s mirror:
* matters.interest is now null for CFJs pre-dating IIs
* viewcase.php and format.php both display II whenever it's non-null
(Previously, these were 1 and not equal to 1 respectively.)
c. wrote:
Heh, here's mine:
Is this for 2696 or 2698 or both? I'm throwing it in as gratuitous
arguments (already have done for Pavitra and 2706).
There are still 10 inquiry cases and 3 criminal cases requiring
judges, and we have all of 5 active non-supine players. Anyone
else want to jump in before the next rotation?
R2215: s/that is effective/that it is thereby effective/
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Is this for 2696 or 2698 or both? I'm throwing it in as gratuitous
arguments (already have done for Pavitra and 2706).
That was 2696; I didn't notice the linked case 2698. For the record I
would have judged trivially
comex wrote:
asset creation and destruction have the same weight? What if widgets
are a class of position cards and a rule (over which R1551 takes
precedence) says they can't be created?
This one at least, is clear. R1551 takes precedence.
-coppro
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
[If e.g. a report saying X has either Y or Z widgets is ratified, then
if X had Y widgets, then e still does; if X had Z widgets, then e still
does; if X had neither Y nor Z widgets, then that needs to be sorted out
by
c. wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
[If e.g. a report saying X has either Y or Z widgets is ratified, then
if X had Y widgets, then e still does; if X had Z widgets, then e still
does; if X had neither Y nor Z widgets, then that needs to be
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Again, these are arguably problems with the current version of the
rule as well. It might well be better to specify that any portion of
the gamestate disclaimered in the document doesn't change.
I would vote for this--
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
comex wrote:
asset creation and destruction have the same weight? What if widgets
are a class of position cards and a rule (over which R1551 takes
precedence) says they can't be created?
This one at least, is clear. R1551
47 matches
Mail list logo
