On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Also, I think the disclaimer was general enough to render the whole
> list ineffective.
If the effective statement is vague enough to be ineffective, surely
it's too vague to violate Truthiness.
comex wrote:
> I stand up.
Ineffective, you can't directly stand (except in conjunction with
judging or sommat, which you didn't).
ais523 wrote:
> On the other hand, I don't really understand why Space Alert exists at
> all...
It has to exist! Where would all the fragments go?
Wooble wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Warrigal wrote:
>> This.
>
> I'm treating this as effective if no one CFJs it.
Yeah, seems reasonably similar to "TTttPF".
comex wrote:
> Well, I disagree with that. It is unreasonable to allow X as an
> "administrative convenience" shorthand for Y if nobody, not even the
> administrators, know what Y is.
>
> ...How do fungible assets fit into this scheme?
Depends whether the rules require one to "specify" or merel
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 13:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Speaking of which, returning to the matter directly at hand on the specific
> > proposal, I didn't think about what considering "all decisions" as a
> > conditional "if a proposal is in its voting peri
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > None of these are ideal. I think #2 is cleaner as (when one of these is
> > discovered) it probably involves recalculating for everyone, anyway. I
> > generally dislike going doing the "who knew about w
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 13:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Speaking of which, returning to the matter directly at hand on the specific
> proposal, I didn't think about what considering "all decisions" as a
> conditional "if a proposal is in its voting period, I vote for it" might
> imply.
You don't
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > On 08/13/2010 01:49 PM, comex wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister". There's
> >>> some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when
> >>> asse
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:05 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 15:32 -0400, comex wrote:
>> I intend, with 3 support, to start a new journey.
>
> Why is that not "3 support and notice?"
I was wondering if anyone would support and let me start a new journey
before y'all's notice timeouts e
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 08/13/2010 01:49 PM, comex wrote:
>>>
>>> "I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister". There's
>>> some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when
>>> assets were more strictly controlled and the rules c
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 15:32 -0400, comex wrote:
> I intend, with 3 support, to start a new journey.
Why is that not "3 support and notice?"
On the other hand, I don't really understand why Space Alert exists at
all...
--
ais523
On 08/13/2010 01:49 PM, comex wrote:
"I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister". There's
some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when
assets were more strictly controlled and the rules came out and said you
had to be very specific. That's not in the Ru
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> None of these are ideal. I think #2 is cleaner as (when one of these is
> discovered) it probably involves recalculating for everyone, anyway. I
> generally dislike going doing the "who knew about what when" path. But I
> admit this is all p
On 08/13/2010 05:21 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
Because they are supposed to be an automatic part of the game. In
particular, the only reason someone would make an II=0 proposal
undistributable is to delay it a week, which violates the idea of a
o
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:18 PM, ais523 wrote:
> something which many Agorans seem reluctant
> to do for some reason.
> Current total number of rules: 139
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 00:00 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 20:28, Keba wrote:
>
> --
> Keba
>
> If you don't mind me asking, who are you? Have you played Agora before
> (you awarded yourself a white ribbon as if you hadn't). If not, how
> much time
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> This.
I'm treating this as effective if no one CFJs it.
Warrigal wrote:
> Waking up after a multi-month nap seems like a good idea to me. I
> become active. I sit. I change my nickname to Tanner L. Swett.
>
> —Tanner L. Swett, now one of the few Agorans who uses his real name
> for Agora but a nickname for his "From" line
wrong mailing list.
--
Keba
Waking up after a multi-month nap seems like a good idea to me. I
become active. I sit. I change my nickname to Tanner L. Swett.
—Tanner L. Swett, now one of the few Agorans who uses his real name
for Agora but a nickname for his "From" line
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> it's hard to have a proposal out there in its
> voting period without passing the "most people should know about this"
> test.
In fact, for rule change proposals, R101 makes it very likely IMPOSSIBLE.
-G.
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: Distribution (AI=1.5, II=1, Distributable via fee)
> {{{
> Award Taral the Patent Title Distributor.
> }}}
>
> -coppro
Note: CFJ 1298 has some wholly irrelevant historical context. For a
while Taral was the official Distributor while Steve he
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin
> >> wrote:
> >> > So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences
> >> > to create leg
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 03:08, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Low altitude
> (AI = 1, II = 0, distributable by fee)
>
> Keba is a co-author of this proposal, unless e announces within a
> week after the publication of this proposal that e is not.
>
> Amend Rule 2287 (Props) by replacing this text
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Keba wrote:
> First, I don‘t assume there are players who think an erg income is more
> important than winning.
It could be, if a Teams win was getting close and the player with 30
Props could win both ways.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Since the publishing is done by this technical (actual) act, terms like
> "I hereby announce" or "I hereby publish" or "I state" are simply handy
> delimiters/framing devices or color for focusing relevant content. In
> other words, syntactic
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 16:58, Alex Smith wrote:
>>
>> I publish the following thesis, intending to qualify for a degree
>> (perhaps D.N.Hist?):
>> {
>> A History of Agoran Wins, 2009-present
>> by ais52
>
> First, I thought comex's win
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences
>> > to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots
>>
>> So, you're
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:36, Keba wrote:
> Proposal: "Win by Respect" (AI=1, II=0, distributable)
>
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2287 "Props" by replacing:
>
>A player with 30 or more props CAN destroy all eir
> prop
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:36, Keba wrote:
> Proposal: "Win by Respect" (AI=1, II=0, distributable)
>
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2287 "Props" by replacing:
>
>A player with 30 or more props CAN destroy all eir props to
>satisfy the Winning Condition of Respect. 14 props are then
>
Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
> >> Proposal: Low altitude
> >> (AI = 1, II = 0, distributable by fee)
> >>
> >> Keba is a co-author of this proposal, unless e announces within a
> >> week after the publication of this proposal that e is not.
> >>
> >> Amend Rule 2287 (Props) by replacing thi
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I also initiate an election to decide the holder of the ATC office.
> Murphy seems to be overburdened controlling two highly critical
> offices (CotC and Assessor), and hasn't found time to regularly update
> us on air traffic issues. I nominate myself as ATC.
I nominate my
Am Freitag, den 13.08.2010, 00:00 -0500 schrieb Aaron Goldfein:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 20:28, Keba wrote:
>
> --
> Keba
>
>
> If you don't mind me asking, who are you? Have you played Agora before
> (you awarded yourself a white ribbon as if you hadn't).
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Because they are supposed to be an automatic part of the game. In
> particular, the only reason someone would make an II=0 proposal
> undistributable is to delay it a week, which violates the idea of a
> once-a-week offering of weird rule changes
coppro wrote:
>> Proposal: Low altitude
>> (AI = 1, II = 0, distributable by fee)
>>
>> Keba is a co-author of this proposal, unless e announces within a
>> week after the publication of this proposal that e is not.
>>
>> Amend Rule 2287 (Props) by replacing this text:
>>
>>The Air Traffi
On 08/13/2010 02:08 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Keba wrote:
Hereby, I publish a Notice of Violation alleging that Murphy violated
Rule 2143, which has power 1, by failing to publish an Air Traffic
Controller's report in the week starting on 5th July 2010.
[It's not the point that they were no weekly
36 matches
Mail list logo
