On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:45 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
===
Industrial Bank Agora Report
CoE: You are missing my recent
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:09 AM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:45 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/20 comex com...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:04 AM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
I intend, without objection, to transfer 4 Distrib-u-matics from the
LF department to the IBA.
I intend, without objection, to make Yally inactive.
I object.
--
-c.
It is, in fact, POSSIBLE to transfer Rests to the Lost and Found
Department, by ceasing to be a person. (The question is, does such an
unreasonable method of action satisfy a CAN-sans-mechanism clause?)
--
-c.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
It is, in fact, POSSIBLE to transfer Rests to the Lost and Found
Department, by ceasing to be a person. (The question is, does such an
unreasonable method of action satisfy a CAN-sans-mechanism clause?)
One second after sending
2009/10/20 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
It is, in fact, POSSIBLE to transfer Rests to the Lost and Found
Department, by ceasing to be a person. (The question is, does such an
unreasonable method of action satisfy a
--- On Tue, 20/10/09, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:53 PM,
Alex Smith
callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this. Without
being able to see coppro's reasoning, I have no idea whether
eir judgement is
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
It is, in fact, POSSIBLE to transfer Rests to the Lost and Found
Department, by ceasing to be a person. (The question is, does such an
unreasonable
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
It is, in fact, POSSIBLE to transfer Rests to the Lost and Found
Department, by ceasing
ais523 wrote:
And with 2 support, I do so.
NttPF
Also, CFJ 2055 (thanks ais523)
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Alex Smith
callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I support.
And with 2 support, I do so.
I become hemming-and-hawing and sitting, favor this case, and disfavor
all other judicial cases.
Note
FYI: B's war judgement declared ineffective on a technicality. (I was
trying to appeal it on the grounds that the persons behind it didn't
discuss it in Agora first, nor use their Agoran roles in executing it.)
Original Message
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:10:30 +
From: 0x44
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
FYI: B's war judgement declared ineffective on a technicality. (I was
trying to appeal it on the grounds that the persons behind it didn't
discuss it in Agora first, nor use their Agoran roles in executing it.)
I'd
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
I deposit 3 * WRV for 390zm.
I think this affects my later withdrawal.
--
Taral tar...@gmail.com
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
Wooble wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
FYI: B's war judgement declared ineffective on a technicality. (I was
trying to appeal it on the grounds that the persons behind it didn't
discuss it in Agora first, nor use their Agoran roles in
I wrote:
Proposal: Clarify emergency distribution
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by replacing this text:
If the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current active
player to distribute a Proposal, then any player may do so
Without 3
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
Friendly B Nomic
(http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/B%20Nomic)
I humbly request the Ambassador flip the Recognition of B Nomic to
Sanctioned in light of eir near-success at a
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
Friendly B Nomic
(http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/B%20Nomic)
I humbly request the Ambassador flip the
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
Friendly B Nomic
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Charles Walker
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I've a new experiment to try:
{{
This is a Public Equitable pledge named Happy Times
If this contract is a contest, its contestmaster SHALL award points if
and as e sees fit, but CANNOT award them to emself. Otherwise,
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think this would be more interesting is you didn't have the 'as e
sees fit', and instead there was some equity court-enforcible standard
for awarding the points.
Also, I've always wanted to see a
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
True, why not. I consent. (dunno if it's required)\
It is.
-coppro
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I've a new experiment to try:
{{
This is a Public Equitable pledge named Happy Times
Just as long as it doesn't have a with-notice amendment mechanism
--
-c.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree that you did not attempt to declare war.
However, the citizenry (or one of them, anyways) decided otherwise,
and would have judged a state a war to have existed if e could have.
As a result, I ask that B
Ed Murphy wrote:
If I have at least as many Distrib-u-Matics as undistributable proposals
in the pool, then for each such proposal, I play Distrib-u-Matic to make
it distributable.
Having worked things back through the history, I can conclusively say
this failed.
-coppro
Sean Hunt wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
If I have at least as many Distrib-u-Matics as undistributable proposals
in the pool, then for each such proposal, I play Distrib-u-Matic to make
it distributable.
Having worked things back through the history, I can conclusively say
this failed.
-coppro
They suck. That is all.
--
Taral tar...@gmail.com
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
They suck. That is all.
c
I'm reminded of invisiblegames.net, especially the Lenentine Cards.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
coppro wrote:
6541 1 2.0 Murphy Flowers for Wooble
AGAINST. Should only apply to proposals in the Proposal Pool.
Ah, right, removing a proposal from the pool doesn't cause it to
cease being a proposal. (Why not? There's currently no mechanism
to put a removed proposal back
32 matches
Mail list logo
